330 

F<bl3 
H3<b 


rOUNDKl)  BY  JOHN  D.  KOCKEFEl.l.KU 


JOHN    FLETCIIEE 


A.    STUDY    IN 

DRAMATIC    METHOD 


A    DISSERTATION    SUBMITTED    TO    THE    FACULTY   OF 
THE  GRADUATE  SCHOOL  OF  ARTS  AND  LITERA- 
TURE OF  THE   UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO 
IN  CANDIDACY  FOR  THE  DEGREE 
OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


(DEPARTMENT    OF   ENGLISH) 


BY 

ORIE    LATHAM    HATCHER 


CHICAGO 
SCOTT,    FORESMAN    AND     COMPANY 

1905 


Zbc  innivereitB  ot  Cbicago 

FOUNDED  BY  JOHN  D.  ROCKEFELLER 


JOHN    FLETCHEE 


A    STUDY    tN" 

DRAMATIC    METHOD 


A    DISSERTATION    SUBMITTED    TO    THE    FACULTY   OF 
THE  GRADUATE  SCHOOL  OF  ARTS  AND  LITERA- 
TURE OF  THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO 
IN  CANDIDACY  FOR  THE  DEGREE 
OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


(DEPARTMENT    OF   ENGLISH) 


BY 

OKIE    LATHAM  /HATCHER 


OF   Toe       '  \ 

UNIVERSITY 

OF 


CHICAGO 
SCOTT,    FORESMAN    AND     COMPANY 

1905 


'"'""\    A/l.t" 


e/i. 


F(oL 


PREFACE. 

A  word  is  needed  as  to  the  topics  chosen  for  dicussion  and  the 
order  of  their  arrangement. 

The  study  makes  no  attempt  at  being  exhaustive  in  its  range  of 
topics,  but  aims  to  bring  into  prominence  certain  of  Fletcher's  traits  as  a 
dramatist  which  deserve  more  attention  than  they  have  yet  received.  His 
poetical  gifts,  metrical  qualities,  and  diction,  have  been  fully  and  fre- 
quently treated  elsewhere,  and  for  this  reason  are  not  given  a  large 
ehare  of  attention  here. 

The  investigation  into  Fletcher's  Choice  and  Treatment  of  Sourcet 
and  the  discussion  of  his  Master^/  of  Stagecraft  are  properly  both  parts 
of  Chapter  V  on  General  Dramatic  Method,  but  on  account  of  their  bulk 
and  significancCj  each  has  been  given  a  separate  chapter,  the  one  serving 
as  an  introduction  and  the  other  as  a  conclusion  to  the  main  chapter. 

The  last  chapter,  on  Spirit  of  the  Comedies,  may  be  open  to  criti- 
cism as  being  beyond  the  limits  laid  down  by  the  subject.  It  is  included, 
however,  because  an  understanding  of  Fletcher's  characteristic  mood  and 
attitude  has  seemed  a  prime  necessity  to  any  full  comprehension  of  his 
methods  of  work. 

Among  those  who  have  helped  me  in  the  preparation  of  this  study. 
Professors  A.  H.  Tolman  and  E.  M.  Lovett,  of  the  University  of  Chicago, 
and  L.  T.  Damon,  of  Brown  University,  have  been  exceedingly  kind  and 
helpful  in  the  way  of  criticism  and  suggestion,  and  Dr.  A.  S.  W.  Rosen- 
bach,  formerly  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania,  has  rendered  me  a  val- 
uable service  in  placing  in  my  hands  his  study — still  unpublished — of  the 
sources  of  the  Beaumont-Fletcher  plays.  To  Prof.  A.  H.  Thorndike,  of 
Northwestern  University,  also  I  am  very  greatly  indebted,  not  only  for 
his  cordial  courtesy  to  a  stranger  in  consenting  to  read  the  proof  sheets, 
but  for  very  helpful  comments,  especially  in  connection  with  the  last  chap- 
ter. To  Prof.  F.  I.  Carpenter,  of  the  University  of  Chicago,  however,  my 
most  grateful  acknowledgment  is  due.  He  suggested  the  undertaking, 
placed  at  my  disposal  the  Beaumont- Fletcher  folios  and  other  rare  books 
needed,  and  at  every  turn  has  stimulated  and  guided  my  work. 

Okie  L.  Hatcher. 
Bryn  Mawr  College,  May,  1905. 


1  r,2r>89 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

Chapter. 

I.     Introduction.     Problems  in  the  Authorship  of  the  Beau- 
mont-Fletcher Plays    7 

II.     Plan   and    Material 24 

III.  Fletcher's   Historical    Eelation   to   the   Leading   Forms   of 

the    Drama 29 

(1)  Pastoral. 

(2)  Tragi-comedy. 

(3)  Tragedy. 

(4)  Comedy. 

IV.  Choice  and  Treatment  of  Sources 37 

(1)  Classical. 

(2)  Historical. 

(3)  Italian. 

(4)  Spanish. 

V.  General  Dramatic  Practice 54 

(1)  Theme. 

(2)  Setting. 

(3)  Conventions. 

(a)  Plot. 

1.  Disguise. 

2.  Romantic  Love. 

3.  Conversion. 

4.  Discovery. 

5.  Domestic  Quarrels. 

6.  Retribution. 

7.  Asides. 

(b)  Character. 

1.  Adoption  of  Types. 

2.  Social  Rank  of  the  Characters. 

3.  The  Principle  of  Contrast. 

4.  Borrowing  of  Types. 

5.  Choice  of  Types. 

5 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


VI. 


Mastery  of 

(1 

(2 
(3 

(4 
(5 
(6 
(7 
(8 
(9 
(10) 


Stagecraft 

A  Varying  Stage  Group. 

The  Travelling  Instinct  in  the  Characters. 

Preparation  for  Travel. 

Rapid  Change  of  Scene. 

Abundance  of  Domestics. 

Interplay  of  Groups. 

Use  of  the  Balcony. 

Play  Within  the  Play. 

Music. 

Realistic  Scenes. 


74 


VII. 


Technique 
(1) 


84 


VIII. 


The  Unities. 

(a)  Time. 

(b)  Place. 

(c)  Action — The  Several  Plots. 

1.  Their  Relation. 

2.  Their  Purpose. 

3.  Means  of  Connecting  them. 

(2)  The  Introduction. 

(3)  Surprise  versus  Preparation. 

(4)  The  Closing  Scene. 

(5)  The  Element  of  Conflict. 

(6)  Comic  Complication. 

The  Spirit  of  the  Comedies 


IX.     Conclusion 


105 
112 


OF  THE  ^ 

UNIVERSITY 


OF 


INTRODUCTION^ :     PEOBLEMS  OF  AUTHORSHIP 
IN  THE  BEAUMONT-FLETCHER  PLAYS. 

The  history  of  opinion  as  to  the  authorship  of  the  Beaumont- 
Fletcher  plays  shows  the  gradual  re-emergence  of  two  identities  from 
the  close  literary  partnership  with  which  the  names  are  associated  in 
the  popular  mind.  That  some  distinction  was  made  between  the  two 
dramatists  in  their  own  day  is  to  be  inferred  from  the  fact  that  each 
is  known  to  have  written  separately  during  the  period  of  their  collabora- 
tion/ and  also  from  the  documentary  evidence  which  indicates  that 
many  of  the  plays  commonly  attributed  to  both  were  not  produced  until 
after  Beaumont's  death.' 

It  is  obvious,  however,  that  the  lines  of  demarcation  between  the 
two  early  became  confused ;  for  already  in  1618-19  Drummond  reports 
Jonson  as  saying  that  "Flesher  and  Beaumont,  ten  yeers  since,  hath 
wxitten  Th.p:  Fn;i]f.fip/.U  Shiylieardesse,  a  tragicomedio  well  done/'^ 
whereas  both  Jonson*  and  Beaumont'  had  already  addressed  lines  to 
Fletcher  in  commendation  of  his  pastoral;  nor  is  Jonson's  other  reported 
comment  that  *'next  himself  only  Fletcher  and  Chapman  could  write 
a  masque""  easy  to  understand  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  only  indepen- 
dent masque   in  the   Beaumont-Fletcher  plays  has,   from   quite   early 

^The  Faithful  Shepherdess,  by  Fletcher,  and  The  Ma-sque  of  the  Inner  Temple  and 

minor  poems  by  Beaumont. 

Bee  also  the  lines  of  Jasper  Maine : 

"For    that   you   could    write   singly   we    may   guess 

By  the  divided  pieces  which  the  press 

Hath   severally  sent  forth." 

Commendatory   Verses,  1647   Folio.     See  Dyce  ed.,   I.   p.   75. 

and  that  of  Cartwrlght  referring  to  Fletcher : 

" 'Tis  known  that  sometimes  he  did  stand  alone."     Ibid.,  p.  76. 

Humphrey  Moseley  also  in  his  Stationer  to  the  Reader  of  the  same  folio  declares: 

"It  was  once  In  my  thoughts  to  have  printed  Master  Fletcher's  works  by  them- 

■«lTes  because  singly  and  alone  they  would  make  a  just  volume." 

•Records  of  Sir  Henry  Herbert  as  Deputy  and  Chief  Master  of  the  Revels:    8?>« 

Malone's  Shakespeare,  ed.  Boswell,  111.  pp.  224-243. 

'Ben  Jonson's  Conversations  with  William  Drummond  of  Hawthomeden.     Sh.  Soc, 
1846,  p.  17. 

*Llnes  prefixed  to  The  Faithful  Shepherdess. 

•Ibid. 

"Se«  Note  3. 

7 


8  BEAUMONT-FLETCHER    PLAYS. 

times,  been  attributed  to  Beaumont  alone.  The  comment  is  possibly  ex- 
plicable— if  fully  accepted  as  Jonson's — on  the  supposition  that  he  pre- 
ferred the  shorter  incidental  efforts  of  Fletcher,  as  contained  in  his  plays, 
to  the  more  elaborate  work  of  Beaumont.  Prof.  Thorndike's  suggestion, 
however,  that  Drummond,  in  his  notes,  confused  Fletcher's  name  with 
Beaumont's  seems  on  the  whole  more  probable.^ 

Seward  is  the  somewhat  dubious  authority  for  the  statement  that 
during  Beaumont's  lifetime,  Fletcher  was  "supposed  unable  to  rise  to  any 
height  of  eminence.  Yet  no  sooner  had  he  lost  that  aid  and  demon- 
gtrated  that  it  was  delight  and  love,  not  necessity,  which  made  him  Boar 
abreast  with  his  amiable  friend,  but  the  still  injurious  world  began  to 
ptrip  the  plumes  from  Beaumont  and  to  dress  Fletcher  in  the  whole 
fame,  leaving  to  the  former  nothing  but  the  mere  pruning  of  Fletcher's 
luxurious  wit.''^  This  testimony  as  to  Beaumont's  being  at  first  esteemed 
the  greater  genius  of  the  two,  while  not  borne  out  by  most  contemporary 
evidence,  is  in  keeping  with  the  facts  that  the  earlier  plays — as  Philaster, 
The  Maid's  Tragedy,  &c. — are  the  ones  in  which  Beaumont's  hand  is 
unmistakably  present,  and  that  they  were  the  most  popular  of  the 
entire  group. 

However  that  may  be,  it  is  evident  that  by  the  time  of  the  publica- 
tion of  the  first  folio  in  1647,  a  strong  tide  in  favor  of  Fletcher  had 
already  set  in,  until,  as  Seward  declares,  some  were  ready  to  dress  him 
"in  the  whole  fame."  In  the  commendatory  verses  included  in  this 
folio,  we  come  upon  a  considerable  mass  of  opinion  as  to  the  literary 
relations  of  the  two  dramatists  and,  while  it  is  held  to  be  of  no  value  in 
deciding  the  authorship  of  separate  plays,  it  is  interesting  as  voicing  the 
theories  of  the  time  and  as  the  probable  source  of  traditions  that  have 
lasted  to  our  own  day.  The  views  expressed  are  by  no  means  uniform, 
although  in  general  they  take  one  of  three  directions : 

(1)     That  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  were  equal  geniuses  fused  into 
one  by  the  force  of  perfect  congeniality  and  not  to  be  distinguished  from 
each  other  in  their  work.  Thus  Berkenhcad  writes  in  his  lines  to  Fletcher : 
"But  you  were  both  for  both,  not  semi-wits, 
Each  piece  is  wholly  two,  yet  never  split, 
Ye  're   not   two   faculties   and    one   soul,    still 
He  the  understanding,  thou  the  quick  free  will, 
But  as  two  voices  in  one  long  embrace, 
Fletcher's  keen  treble  and  deep  Beaumont's  bass, 
Two  full  congenial  souls,  still  both  prevail  'd, 
His  Muse  and  thine  were  quartered  not  impal'd."^ 

nn  a  private  letter,  Apr.  18,  1905. 

21750  Ed.  of  Reaumont  and  Fletcher's  Works.     Preface. 

'Commendatory  Verses,   1G47  Folio.     See  Dyce  ed.  I,  pp.   80-81. 


'■  PROBLEMS    OF    AUTHORSHIP.  9 

Jasper  Maine  has  the  same  idea  in  his  lines: 

"Whether  one  did  contrive,  the  other  write, 
Or  one  framed  the  plots,  the  other  did  indite. 
Where'er  your  parts  between  yourselves  lay,  we 
In  all  things  which  you  did,  but  one  thread  see. '  '^ 

George  Lisle  sums  up  the  theory  more  briefly  in  his  couplet: 

"For  still  your  fancies  are  bo  woven  and  knit, 
'Twas  Francis  Fletcher  or  John  Beaumont  writ. '  '- 

(2)  That  the  plays  were  to  be  accredited  to  Fletcher  alone,  since 

Beaumont  was  not  to  be  taken  into  serious  account  in  explaining  their 

production.    Waller  expresses  this  view  in  the  lines, 

"Fletcher,  to  thee  we  do  not  only  owe 
All  these  good  plays,  but  those  of  others  too."" 

In  this  connection  it  is  a  significant  fact  that  26  of  the  37  verse 
tributes  found  in  the  folio  address  themselves  to  Fletcher  alone,  and 
25  of  that  number  bear  the  heading  "On  Master  John  Fletcher's 
Works"  or  one  of  similar  import.  On  the  other  hand,  only  4  axe  ad- 
dressed to  Beaumont,  and  none  of  these  make  large  claims  for  him 
except  as  to  the  quality  of  his  work. 

(3)  That  Fletcher  was  the  genius  and  creator  in  the  work  and 
Beaumont  the  judicial  and  regulative  force.  Cartwright  gives  the  ex- 
treme application  of  this  theory : 

"His  [Fletcher's]  thoughts  and  his  thoughts'  dress  appeared  both  such, 

That  'twas  his  happy  fault  to  do  too  much, 

Who  therefore  wisely  did  submit  each  birth 

To  knowing  Beaumont,  ere  it  did  come  forth, 

Working  again  until  he  said  'twas  fit, 

And  made  him  the  sobriety  of  his  wit. '  '* 

Howe  has  much  the  same  thought:  ! 

"Perhaps  his  quill  flew  stronger  when 
**  '  'Twas  weaved  with  his  Beaumont's  pen. "^ 

This  last  view  is  the  one  which  appears  to  have  taken  strongest 
hold  on  the  popular  mind,  and  from  this  time  on,  for  more  than  a  cen- 
tury, the  name  of  Beaumont  seems  to  sink  into  obscurity  as  compared 

ilbid.,  p.  75. 

aibld.,  p.  62. 

''Ibid.,  p.  63.  It  is  true  that  none  of  the  plays  in  which  Beaumont's  part  is  sure 
are  Included  In  the  folio  of  1647,  but  Waller  makes  It  clear  by  the  later  lines  of  hla 
poem  that  he  has  in  mind  the  whole  body  of  the  plays  and  not  simply  those  of  this 
folio. 

*IbJd.,  p.  76. 

«lbld.,  p.  84. 


10  BEAUMONT-FLETCHER    PLAYS. 

with  that  of  his  fellow  worker.  Sir  Aston  Cockaine/  in  his  poems  pub- 
lished^ soon  after  the  first  folio,  takes  his  cousin,  Charles  Cotton,*  and 
the  publishers*  of  the  folio  severely  to  task  for  not  making  it  plain  kow 
large  Fletcher's  share  in  the  plays  had  been.  Cockaine  introduces  a 
new  complication  into  the  question  of  authorship,  too,  by  his  statement? 
as  to  Massinger's  having  had  part  in  some  of  the  plays.  His  epitaph^ 
on  Fletcher  and  Massinger  makes  reference  to  the  same  fact,  and  it 
seems  probable  that  these  testimonies  furnish  the  starting  point  for  the 
investigation,  which  has  so  largely  engaged  recent  critics,  as  to  the 
extent  of  Massinger's  contribution  to  the  Beaumont-Fletcher  plays. 

The  tradition  which  Cartwright  had  so  fully  launched  as  to  Fletch- 
er's wielding  "the  pencil"  and  Beaumont  "the  sponge"  is  handed  down 
through  a  succession  of  writers.  Thus  Fuller  comments  that  Fletcher's 
"sail  of  phantasie"  was  held  down  by  Beaumont's  "ballast  of  judge- 

^The  name  Is  variously  spelled  Cokayne,  Cockaine,  Cokalne,  Cockayne  and  Cockaine 
as  here.     I  follow  Dyce. 
'Poems,  1662. 

'I  wonder,   cousin,  tliat  you  would  permit 
So  great  an  injury  to  Fletcher's  wit, 
Your  friend  and  old  Companion,   that  his  fame 
Should  be  divided  in  another's  name. 
If  Beaumont  had  writ  those  plays,  it  had  been 
Against  his  merits  a   detracting  Sin 
Had  they  been  attributed  also  to 
Fletcher         ...... 

Had  Beaumont  lived  when  this  Edition  came 
Forth  and  beheld  his  ever  living  name 
Before  Plays  that  he  never  writ,  how  he 
Had  frowned  and  blushed  at   such   impiety. 

"And  my  good  friend  old  Philip  Massinger 
With  Fletcher  writ  in  some  that  we  see  here." 

For   what   a  foul 
And  inexcusable  fault  it  Is   (that  whole 
Volume  of  plays  being  almost  every  one 
After  the  death  of  Beaumont  wrote)  that  none 
Would  certifle  them  for  so  much.     I  wish  as  free 
Y'had  told  the  Printers  this  as  you  did  me."     Ibid.,  p.  91. 

*"To  Mr.  Humphrey  Mosley  and  Mr.   Humphrey  Robinson. 
In  the  large  book  of  plays  you  late  did  print 
In  Beaumont's  and  in  Fletcher's  name,  why  In't 
Did  you  not  Justice?     Give  to  each  his  due 
For  Beaumont  of  those  many  writ  in  few 
And  Massinger  in  other  few.     The  Main 
Being  sole  issues  of  sweet  Fletcher's  brain."     Ibid.,  p.  117. 

^"Epitaph  on  Mr.  John  Fletcher  and  Mr.  Philip  Massinger. 
In  the  same  grave  Fletcher  was  buried,  here 
Lies  the  stage  poet,   Philip  Massinger. 
I'layes  they  did  write  together,  were  great  friends 
And  now  one  grave  Includes  them  at  their  ends."     Ibid.,  p.  16*. 


PKOBLEMS    OF    AUTHORSHIP.  11 

ment ;  both  compounding  a  Poet  to  admiration/'  ^  and  Aubrey  testifies  on 
the  authority  of  Dr.  Earle,  a  friend  of  both  the  dramatists,  that  Beau- 
mont's "maine  businesse  was  to  correct  the  overflowings  of  Mr.  Fletcher's 
witt."^' 

Dryden's  statement  that  ^'their  plots  were  generally  more  regular 
than  Shakespeare's,  especially  those  which  were  made  before  Beaumont's 
death,"^  would  seem  to  indicate  some  definite  recognition  of  Beaumont, 
as  would  his  praise  of  the  latter's  judgment,  as  being  in  matters  pertain- 
ing to  dramatic  construction  so  accurate  that  "Ben  Jonson  while  he  lived 
submitted  all  his  writings  to  his  censure  and  'tis  thought  used  his  judg- 
ment in  correcting,  if  not  contriving,  all  his  plots.""*  On  the  other  hand, 
however,  Dryden  most  frequently  alludes  to  the  plays  as  if  they  were  en- 
tirely Fletcher's,  even  to  the  very  ones  which  were  obviously  written 
before  Beaumont's  death,  and  if  he  discriminates  at  all  between  the  two, 
is  certainly  more  zealous  to  analyze  Fletcher's  style  and  to  compare  him 
with  Shakspere  than  he  shows  himself  to  be  in  the  case  of  Beaumont. 

Langbaine^  is  among  the  earliest  of  the  critics  to  undertake  any 
definite  assignment  of  plays.  Even  he,  however,  frankly  declares  that 
little  is  known  about  the  matter.  Thus  in  his  introduction  to  his  list 
of  the  plays,  he  remarks :  "I  wish  I  were  able  to  give  the  reader  a  more 
perfect  account  of  what  plays  he  [Fletcher]  writ  in  alone,  in  what  plays 
he  was  assisted  by  the  judicious  Beaumont,  and  which  were  the  plays  in 
which  old  Phil  Massinger  had  a  hand,  but  Mr.  Charles  Cotton  being  dead, 
I  know  none  but  Sir  Aston  Cockain  (if  he  be  yet  alive),  that  can  satisfy 
the  world  in  this  particular." 

The  allotments  which  Langbaine  attempts  are  neither  extensive  nor 
reliable  and  he  makes  slight  effort  to  support  them  by  proof.  He  drops  a 
caution,  as  Dryden  had  done,  against  treating  the  plays  as  an  inseparable 
group,  declaring  that  "Mr.  Fletcher  himself,  after  Mr.  Beaumont's  death, 
composed  several  dramatic  pieces  which  were  worthy  of  the  pen  of  so 
great  a  master."  He  builds  upon  the  old  foundations  by  making  "Mr. 
Fletcher's  wit  equal  to  Mr.  Beaumont's  judgment,"  finds  Fletcher's  pecu- 
liar gift  to  be  a  briskness  and  liveliness  of  expression,  and  declares  that 

^History  of  the  Worthies  of  England.  1662.     See  ed.  1811,  II,  p.  168. 

'Brief  Lives,  Chiefly  of  Contemporaries,  Set  doicn  by  John  Aubrey  between  the 
Vear$  1669  and  1696.     See  ed.  1898.  pp.  95-6. 

'Essay  of  Dramatic  Poesy.     Scott-Salntsbury  ed.,  XV,  pp.  345-6. 

*Ibld..  p.  345. 

See  also  for  further  discussion  of  the  Beaumont-Fletcher  plays  : 

Defense  of  the  Epilogue  of  the  Second  Part  of  the  Conquest  of  Orancda  or  an 
ffsatpy  of  the  Dramatic  Poetry  of  the  Last  Age.     Same  ed..  IV.  pp.  225-243. 

Preface  to  Troilus  and  Cressida  or  The  Grounds  of  Criticism  iit  Tragedy,  VI,  pp. 
254-283. 

Heads  of  An  Answer  to  Rymer.     XV.  pp.  381-392. 

•An  Account  of  the  English  Dramatick  Poets  (1691),  pp.  203-218. 


12  BEAUMONT-FLETCHEE    PLAYS. 

B 

"no  man  ever  -understood  or  drew  the  passions  more  lively  than  he.'*  Lang- 
baine's  assignment  of  The  Woman  Hater  to  Fletcher  was  probably  the 
basis  of  a  long  line  of  erroneous  assumptions  by  others  in  the  distribution 
of  the  plays.  On  the  other  hand,  his  allotment  of  The  Woman's  Prize  and 
The  Faithful  Shepherdess  to  Fletcher  and  of  The  Masque  of  the  Inner 
Temple  to  Beaumont  have  been  justified  by  all  later  investigation,  while 
his  declaration  of  Shakspere's  part  with  Fletcher  in  The  Two  Nohle 
Kinsmen  has  been  borne  out  by  the  conclusions  of  Spalding,'  Hiekson* 
and  other  close  students  of  the  play. 

Collier  in  his  famous  Short  View  (1697-8)  suggests  that  Beaumont 
was  guilty  of  greater  indelicacy  of  language  than  Fletcher,  and  bases 
his  suggestion  on  the  claim  that  the  earliest  plays  have  the  largest  num- 
ber of  objectionable  passages.*  The  claim  is  hardly  capable  of  proof, 
but  is  interesting  in  contrast  with  the  recent  tendency  to  credit  Beau- 
mont with  an  imagination  essentially  purer  and  more  delicate  than 
Fletcher's. 

The  octavo  edition  of  1711*  attempts  no  solution  of  the  problems  of 
authorship,  beyond  the  slight  suggestion  that  Shirley's  traditional  part 
in  the  plays  was  in  the  way  of  completing  some  left  unfinished  by 
Fletcher  at  his  death.  The  Coronation  and  The  Night  Walher^  or  The 
Little  Thief  are  cited  as  plays  on  which  both  worked  in  this  fashion, 
although  the  editor  declares  that  Shirley  tried  to  claim  both  as  entirely 
his  own  creations. 

With  the  edition  of  1750,^  begun  by  Theobald  but  finished  by  Symp- 
son  and  Seward,  we  come  upon  what  appears  to  be  the  first  serious  at- 
tempt at  a  critical  discussion  of  the  separate  shares  of  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher  in  tlie  plays.     The  discussion  has  interest,  not  only  because  it 

^A  Letter  on  Shakspere's  Authorship  of  The  Two  No'ble  Kinsmen  (1833).  Re- 
printed by  New  Sh.   Soc,  1874.     Appendix,  p.   21. 

*The  Shares  of  Shakspere  and  Fletcher  in  The  Two  No'ble  Kinsmen.  Westminster 
and  Foreign  Quarterly  Review,  XCII-LXXVII,  Apr.,  1847,  pp.  59-88.  Reprinted  In 
New  Shi.  Soc,  Trans'ns,  1874,  appendix,  p.  25. 

*A  Short  View  of  the  Immorality  and  Profaneness  of  the  English  Stage.  2d  ed., 
1898,  pp.  51-53. 

*The  Works  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  In  7  vols.  London,  etc.,  1711.  Bet 
Preface  Giving  Some  Account  of  the  Authors  and  Their  Writings. 

*The  NigJit  Walker  is  certified  to  in  the  Herbert  MS.  as  Fletcher's  work  revised  by 
Shirley.  See  Malone  Shakspeare.  ed.  Boswell,  III,  p.  236.  Malone  mentions  also  that 
Shirley  corrected  and  finished  Love's  Pilgrimage  and  cites  the  Herbert  MS.  as  authority 
Ibid.,  p.  226. 

"T/ie  Works  of  Mr.  Francis  Beaumont  and  Mr.  John  Fletcher.     In  10  vols.     Col- 
lated  with   all    former    editions    amd   corrected,    with   notes    critical    and    explanatory,   i 
Bif  the  late  Mr.   Theobald,  Mr.  Seward  of  Eyam  in  Derbyshire,  am,d  Mr.  Sympstm  of 
Oaincsborough,   etc.     London,    1750.      See  Introduction,   written   as   a    Preface   to   tbe 
Preface  of  the  1711  edition. 


PEOBLEMS    OF    AUTHORSHIP.  18 

revives  definitely  the  claims  of  Beaumont,  but  also  because  of  the  con- 
tradictory views  which  the  two  later  editors  express  upon  the  point  at 
issue. 

Sympson,  on  the  one  hand,  distrusts  any  effort  to  discriminate  be- 
tween the  work  of  Beaumont  and  that  of  Fletcher,  since  he  finds  both  in- 
ternal and  external  evidence  entirely  inadequate  for  proof.  As  to  the 
internal  evidence,  he  declares  that  Beaumont's  accuracy  and  Fletcher's 
wit  are  so  indistinguishable  that  "were  we  not  sure  to  a  demonstration 
that  the  masque  was  the  former's  and  The  Faithful  Shepherdess  the 
latter's  sole  production,  they  might  each  have  passed  for  the  concurrent 
labors  of  both  or  have  changed  hands  and  the  last  have  been  taken  for 
Beaumont's  and  the  former  for  Fletcher's."  The  external  or  docu- 
mentary proof — considerable  as  it  is  in  the  testimonies  of  the  early 
versifiers,  publishers,  writers  of  prologues,  &c. — he  regards  as  too  con- 
tradictory and  incomplete  to  warrant  any  safe  deductions  from  it. 

Seward,  however,  is  convinced  that  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  are  not 
inseparable  and  evolves  an  interesting  method  of  discriminating  between 
them.  He  begins  by  reviewing  the  course  of  criticism  down  to  his  own 
day  and  declares  that  grave  injustice  has  been  done  Beaumont  in  repre- 
senting him  as  a  mere  pruning  knife  for  Fletcher's  wit,  or  even,  at  times 
as  a  dead  weight  upon  Fletcher's  "boughs  of  palm."  He  calls  attention 
to  the  fact  that  both  Cartwright'  and  Harris^ — whom  he  blames  most 
for  the  derogatory  tradition — wrote  long  after  Beaumont's  day,  while 
Earle,*  whose  verses  came  immediately  after  Beaumont's  death  and  who 
appears  to  have  had  a  personal  acquaintance  with  him,  credited  him 
with  the  chief  share  in  The  Maid's  Tragedy  and  Philaster^  and  definitely 
assigned  to  him  the  character  of  Bessus  in  A  King  and  No  King. 
Seward  also  combatted  the  tradition  that  Beaumont  was  "the  grave, 
solemn,  tragic  poet  only,"  and  maintained  that,  on  the  contrary,  his 
peculiar  gift  was  for  the  comic  Jonsonian  liumor.  This  gift  he  first  dis- 
cerned in  the  portrayal  of  Bessus.  Coming  later  to  study  The  Worriaii 
Hater,  he  detected  evident  marks  of  Jonson's  manner  in  that  as  well, 
but  being  deceived  by  Langbaine's  ascription  of  the  play  to  Fletcher,  he 
did  not  at  first  connect  the  two  plays  in  his  mind  or  think  of  a  common 
authorship  for  tliem.  Afterwards  he  came  upon  Beaumont's  letter'*  to 
Jonson  in  which  the  former  speaks  of  "the  two  precedent  comedies  then 
not  finished."     From  the  position  of  the  letter  in  the  second  folio  im- 

^See  Dyf-e  ed.  I,  pp.  76-78,  for  poems  reprinted  from  1647  Folio. 
2Ibid.,  pp.  87-80. 
3lb!d.,   pp.    72-74. 
*Dyce  ed.,  II.  955-6. 


14  BEAUMONT-FLETCHER    PLAYS. 

mediately  after  Nice  Valour  or  the  Passionate  Madman,  Seward  con- 
cludes that  play  to  be  one  of  the  two  referred  to,  and  then  on  the  basis  ! 
of  similarity,  as  well  as  from  certain  documentary  evidence,  selects  The 
Woman  Hater  as  the  other.  The  similarity  of  the  two  plays  he  traces 
not  only  in  the  "personizing  of  humors"  as  shown  in  Chamont^  and 
Labarillo,^  but  also  in  the  contemptuous  complacency  of  the  author  as 
found  alike  in  the  epilogue  of  Nice  Valour  and  the  prologue  of  The 
Woman  Hater.  He  strengthens  the  evidence  as  to  Jonson's  influence, 
too,  by  Beaumont's  own  suggestion  in  the  letter  that  Jonson  was  his 
master.'  Following  these  earlier  tests  and  educing  also  from  The 
Woman  Hater  proof  of  Beaumont's  gift  for  the  "burlesque  sublime," 
he  comes  to  detect  the  same  hand  in  The  Knight  of  the  Burning  Pestle, 
The  Little  French  Lawyer,  The  Scornful  Lady,  Love's  Cure,  Wit  With- 
out Money,  The  Custom  of  the  Country,  and,  with  less  certainty,  in  The 
Humorous  Lieutenant,  The  Maid  in  the  Mill,  The  False  One,  Cupid's 
Revenge,  The  Noble  Gentleman,  The  Coxcomb,  The  Spanish  Curate  and 
The  Laws  of  Candy. 

On  the  basis  of  these  assignments,  Seward  gives  also  some  differentia- 
tion of  the  styles  and  methods  of  the  two  dramatists.  Thus  he  declares 
that  while  in  tragedy  both  alike  followed  nature,  they  differed  in  com- 
edy, since  Beaumont  studied  books  and  Jonson,  while  Fletcher  applied 
himself  chiefly  to  Shakspere  and  men — the  one  drawing  nature  "in 
her  extremes"  and  the  other  showing  her  in  "her  usual  dress."  Seward 
further  adds  that  for  the  reason  that  Fletcher  knew  so  well  the  life  of 
his  own  day,  "the  gay  sprightliness  and  natural  ease  of  his  young  men 
are  held  to  be  superior  to  Beaumont's  and,  indeed,  even  to  Shakes- 
peare's." 

The  conclusion  of  the  whole  matter  then  is,  according  to  Seward, 
that  "these  twins  of  poetry,  greatly  resembling,  are  yet  still  distinct" ;  but 
that  any  attempt  to  add  to  the  fame  of  one  by  detracting  from  that  of 
the  other  is  unamiable  and  unjustifiable,  since  they  were,  after  all,  in 
Berkenhead's  phrase,  "two  full,  congenial  souls."'' 

It  must  be  granted  that  Seward's  reasoning  is  not  always  safe,  and 

^In  Nice  Valour. 

■In  The  Woman  Hater. 

^"Fate  once  again 

Bring  me  to  tbee  who  canst  make  smooth  and  plain 

The  way  of  knowledge  for  me  and  then  I 

Who  have  no  good  but  In  thy   company 

Protest  It  will  my  greatest  comfort  be 

To  acknowledge  all  I  have  to  flow  from  thee." 

Dyce  ed.  II,  p.  956. 
*Se€  p.  8  of  this  Btudy  for  lines  containing  this  phrase. 


PEOBLEMS    OF    AUTHOESHIP.  15 

the  commentator  of  the  edition  of  1778^  has  so  far  convicted  him  of 
inaccuracy  in  regard  to  documentary  evidence  as  to  show  that  his  in- 
ferences from  the  quartos  and  folios  in  regard  to  the  authorship  of  The 
Woman  Hater  and  of  Nice  Valour  are  largely  unwarranted.  Moreover, 
the  mutilations  to  which  he  and  his  colleague  subjected  the  texts  of  the 
plays  have  earned  for  them  ever  since  the  anathemas  of  critics.  At  the 
same  time,  it  should  be  remembered  that  Seward  was  among  the  first, 
if  not  actually  the  first,  to  rebuke  the  earlier  injustice  to  Beaumont,  or 
to  attempt  any  critical  characterization  of  him,  and  while  there  are 
various  errors  in  his  data  and  arguments,  the  chief  traits  which  he 
ascribed  to  Beaumont  are  those  which  later  research  has  established  as 
correct.  In  his  claim  of  The  Woman  Hater  for  Beaumont,  too,  he  antici- 
pated by  more  than  a  century  the  conclusions  to  which  both  metrical 
and  literary  critics  have  come.  If  his  suggestion  had  been  heeded  in- 
stead of  Langbaine's,  Weber,  Darley  and  Dyce  might  have  avoided  a 
wrong  starting  point  and  much  time  might  have  been  saved. 

It  seems  quite  possible,  however,  that  Seward's  theory  was  little 
known;  for  Chalmers  in  his  Worlcs  of  the  English  Poets,-  published  in 
1810,  cites  Egerton  Brydges  as  making  just  remonstrance  against  the 
continued  wrong  to  Beaumont  and  as  commending  A  Companion  to 
the  Play-House,  or  as  it  was  later  known,  the  Biographia  Dramatica 
(1769)  for  its  unassisted  efforts  to  revive  the  interest  in  him.  It 
is  noticeable,  too,  that  neither  Gibber's  Lives  of  the  Poets^  (1753) 
nor  the  book  just  cited  seems  to  recognize  at  all  the  suggestions 
of  Seward,  for  the  first  declares  the  questions  of  authorship  still  quite 
unsettled,  and  the  second,  while  making  a  larger  claim  than  Seward's 
for  Beaumont,  has  no  reference  to  the  grounds  on  which  he  bases  his 
conclusions,  and  emphasizes  the  old  theory  of  Beaumont's  superior  grav- 
ity, against  which  Seward  had  protested  vigorously. 

Evidently,  however,  Beaumont  was  rising  steadily  in  favor,  for  the 
editor  of  the  Biographia  Dramatical  without  even  attempting  any  close 
proof  of  his  assertions,  credits  Beaumont  with  a  share  in  much  the  greater 
part  of  the  fifty-three  plays  which  are  listed,  and  thinks  it  probable  that 
he  made  the  plots,  wrote  the  serious  passages  and  then — after  Fletcher 

^Dramatic  Works  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher.  (See  Introduction.)  Edited  by  Geo. 
Oalm&n.     Londnn,  1778.     10  toIb. 

■VI,  pp.  175-7.     Introduction  to  Beaumont'B  Minor  Poems. 

*IAv€H  of  the  Poets  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  to  the  time  of  Dean  Btdft,  etc., 
pp.  1B4164. 

*See  ed.  1812  I,  pp.  23-26.  Biographia  Dramatica  or  a  Companion  to  the  Plavhoute. 
Originallv  compiled  to  the  pear  1161,  by  David  Erskine  Baker  and  continued  to  nst  6y 
Taaac  Reed.    Brought  dotcn  to  Nat>.,  1811,  hy  Stephen  Jones.     London  1769  and  iBlt. 


16  BEAUMONT-FLETCHER    PLAYS. 

had  added  the  light  and  lively  scenes — cut  down  the  excesses  of  wit  and 
reduced  the  whole  to  final  symmetry.  This  is,  of  course,  a  large  claim  to 
make  for  Beaumont,  and  one  on  the  whole  insupportable ;  but  it  is  signifi- 
cant of  the  changed  trend  of  opinion. 

Thus  far,  most  critics  had  apparently  felt  themselves  free  to  make 
any  assignment  of  the  plays  which  internal  evidence  suggested  and  had 
given  little  attention  to  the  question  of  chronological  proofs.  It  was  in 
this  way  that  the  early  editor  of  the  Biographia  Dramatica  had  come 
to  attribute  to  Beaumont  a  part  in  most  of  the  plays,  and  that  others 
had  generalized  with  almost  equal  daring  on  the  basis  of  real  or  fancied 
resemblances.  With  Malone's  publication,  in  1790,  of  the  Herbert 
Manuscript,^  however,  such  sweeping  inferences  were  shown  to  be  unsafe, 
since  Herbert's  entries  in  his  Office  Book  as  Deputy  and  Chief  Master 
of  the  Revels  proved  that  many  of  the  plays  were  not  licensed  until 
after  Beaumont's  death.  The  evidence^  seemed  to  serve  the  important 
end  of  removing  the  possibility  of  Beaumont's  having  had  any  part  in 
several  hitherto  doubtful  plays  and,  taken  in  connection  with  statements 
by  Herbert  as  to  the  authorship  of  certain  of  the  plays,  suggested  a 
group  which,  at  least  tentatively,  might  be  treated  as  Fletcher's  alone 
and  as  serving  to  mark  his  style.* 

Weber  in  his  edition  of  1812*  was  one  of  the  first"  to  avail  himself  of 
Malone's  disclosures.  He  took  up  the  question  of  authorship  at  some 
length  and  hazarded  various  conjectures  and  claims.  He  thought  it  "not 
improbable  that  Fletcher,  like  Ben  Jonson,  took  advantage  of  the  judg- 
ment of  Beaumont  to  submit  his  performances  to  his  correction  and  that 
the  two  were  gradually  led  by  a  congeniality  of  mind  to  compose  dramas 
in  conjunction."  He  brought  forward  evidence  to  prove  that  Fletcher 
not  only  wrote  alone  during  Beaumont's  lifetime,  but  also  collaborated 
with  other  dramatists.  The  plays  written  by  Fletcher  alone  at  that  time 
he  takes  to  be  four,  and  those  in  which  he  worked  after  Beaumont's 
death  thirty ;  while  the  number  in  which  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  wrote 
together  is  reckoned  at  eighteen.  Massinger's  collaboration  with 
Fletcher,  he  thinks,  occurred  soon  after  Beaumont's  death,  and  he  finds 
traces  also  in  this  later  group,  of  Shakspere,  Shirley,  Rowley,  Middle- 

^A  Historical  Account  of  the  Rise  and  Progress  of  the  English  Stage,  etc.     (1790.) 

See  Malone's   Shakespeare,  ed.  Boswell,   III,   pp.  224-243. 

■Darley  and  Ollphant  have  both  attempted  to  Invalidate  the  above  assumption 
from  the  Herbert  MS.  as  to  Beaumont.     See  pp.  17  and  22  of  this  study. 

*See  p.  27  of  this  study,  however,  for  comment  on  safety  of  Inductions  based  on 
Herbert's  records. 

*Works  of  licdumont  and  Fletcher  in  14  vols.,  with  Introduction  and  Explanutory 
Note*.     Edinboro,  1812.     See  Introduction. 


PROBLEMS    OF    AUTHORSHIP.  17 

i  ton,  Jonson,  Field  and  Daborne.  On  the  whole,  however,  Weber  added 
I  little  that  was  either  safe  or  valuable  to  the  conclusions  of  earlier  critics. 
He  is  suggestive  in  some  of  his  comments,  but  several  of  his  conclusions 
have  been  entirely  rejected  by  later  students. 

Darley  in  his  edition'  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  brought  out  in 
1839,  assigns  twenty  plays  to  Fletcher  alone — seventeen  on  the  basis  of 
the  Herbert  MS.,  two  lost  ones  for  which  licenses  are  recorded,  and  The 
Faithful  Shepherdess,  otherwise  certified  to.  The  eighteen  available 
plays  of  this  group  he  regards  as  an  ample  basis  for  the  study  of 
Fletcher's  distinctive  traits.  Ten  other  plays  Darley  inclines  to  attribute 
in  part  to  Beaumont,  although  only  three — Philaster,  The  Maid's  Trag- 
edy and  A  King  and  No  King  are  incontrovertibly  proved  to  be  joint 
productions.  The  first  two  of  these,  however,  according  to  Darley,  fur- 
nish the  chief  claim  of  the  dramatists  to  high  fame  and  so  constitute  a 
strong  argument  for  the  excellence  of  Beaumont's  genius.  In  three  of 
the  remaining  twenty-six  plays  Darley  finds  traces  of  Beaumont's  graver 
qualities  and  ventures  the  interesting  conjecture  that  several  of  the  plays 
not  brought  out  until  after  Beaumont's  death  were  planned  and  perhaps 
written  with  his  collaboration  at  an  earlier  period.^  The  study  which 
Darley  made  of  the  metrical  qualities  of  the  plays  was  a  departure  from 
the  ordinary  lines  of  criticism  and  along  with  the  appreciative  discus- 
sions of  Coleridge,  probably  furnished  the  incentive  to  the  later  metrical 
critics.  He  directed  attention  also  to  Massinger's  versification  as  being 
markedly  of  the  school  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  and  yet  showing  dif- 
ferences from  that  of  either  of  the  two.^ 

Dyce  in  his  edition  of  1843-G^  gives  considerable  attention  to  the  ap- 
portionment of  plays.  Following  Langbaine  he  assigns  The  Woman 
Hater  to  Fletcher,  and  with  this  as  an  example  of  Fletcher's  manner, 
discovers  the  same  hand  as  working  alone  in  twenty-six  other  plays, 
while  fourteen  of  the  remaining  are  taken  to  be  by  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher  jointly,  and  sixteen  by  Fletcher  and  some  writer  or  writers 
other  than  Beaumont.  These  decisions,  however,  are  made  largely  on  the 
basis  of  literary  instinct,  together  with  such  slight  chronological  evi- 
dence as  was  available,  and  while  many  of  the  assignments  have  been 

^The  Workg  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher.  With  an  Introduction  by  George  Darley. 
Liondon,  1839.  The  edition  here  quoted,  however,  Is  a  later  one  of  1880.  See  pp. 
xix-xxl  of  the  Introduction. 

*Cf.  Ollphant'B  elaboration  of  this  same  possibility  In  his  series  of  article*  In 
Engliache  Studien,  XIV-XVI.  See  also  p.  22  of  this  study  for  treatment  of  same 
subject. 

^The  Works  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher.  11  vols.,  1843-6.  See  Introduction,  pp. 
14-45. 


18  BEAUMONT-FLETCHEE    PLAYS. 

substantiated  by  later  critics,  various  others  have  been  set  aside  as  un- 
warranted. When  once  his  fundamental  assumption  as  to  the  author- 
ehip  of  The  Woman  Hater  had  been  rejected,  it  was  easy,  of  course,  to 
distrust  generally  his  allotment  of  plays  to  Fletcher. 

Of  the  purely  literary  critics,^  the  host  multiplies  steadily  from 
the  first  decade  of  the  nineteenth  century.  Lamb  (1808),^  Schlegel 
(1811)^  and  Coleridge*  were  the  chief  earlier  ones;  but  none  of  these 
showed  any  inclination  to  discriminate  closely  between  the  work  of  the 
two  dramatists.  Schlegel  indeed,  like  Sympson,  was  inclined  to  de- 
preciate any  such  effort  and  found  throughout  the  plays  only  one  spirit 
and  manner,  while  Coleridge  declared  that  he  had  "never  been  able  to 
distinguish  the  presence  of  Fletcher  during  the  lifetime  of  Beaumont 
nor  the  absence  of  Beaumont  during  the  survival  of  Fletcher."^  Hazlitt 
(1821)^  attempts  no  definite  distinctions,  nor  does  Hallam  (1840),' 
Leigh  Hunt  (1855)^  agrees  to  the  early  tradition  about  Beaumont's 
greater  seriousness,  but  maintains  that  each  could  shift  his  style  and 
mood  as  he  thought  proper.  Donne  (1858),®  Craik  (1864)^®  and  Miss 
Crofts  (1884)^^  all  follow  Schlegel's  general  theory,  Lonne  even  declar- 
ing that  a  comparison  of  the  plays  attributed  to  Beaumont  and  Fletcher 
jointly  with  those  considered  to  be  by  Fletcher  alone,  makes  the  wit  and 
judgment  theory  "depart  into  the  lumber  room  of  respectable  fallacies." 
In  proof  of  this,  he  finds  The  Knight  of  the  Burning  Pestle  as  full  of  un- 
checked animal  spirits  as  anything  which  Fletcher  is  thought  to  have 
written  alone  and  insists  that  several  in  the  earlier  group  of  plays  are 
marked  by  traits  which  are  held  to  be  distinctly  characteristic  of 
Fletcher.  Swinburne  (1875),^^  on  the  other  hand,  finds  Beaumont's 
spirit  so  dominant  in  the  plays  which  he  wrote  that  it  is  hard  to  discover 
Fletcher  in  them  at  all.  \lle  points  out,  too,  that  while  Beaumont's  genius 

*The  chronological  order  is  departed  from  here  in  order  to  bring  the  aesthetic 
or  primarily  literary  criticism  of  the  nineteenth  century  together.  The  more  tech- 
nical criticism  Is  thus  treated  in  two  divisions — one  preceding  and  the  other  Immedi- 
ately following  this  discussion. 

^Characters  of  Dramatic  Writers.     Temple  ed.  1897,  IV,  pp.  233-252. 

^Lectures  on  Dramatic  Art  and  Literature^  ed.  1846,  pp.  466-474. 

*Tahle  Talk  (1835).  See  Ashe  ed.  1896  IV,  pp.  193,  214,  234,  276,  etc.  Lectures 
and  Notet  on  Shakespeare  and  other  Dramatists^  ed.  Ashe,  1885,  pp.  425-451. 

»Ibid.,  p.  399. 

'Lectures  on  the  Literature  of  the  Age  of  Eliza})ethj  ed.  1884,  pp.  107-126. 

^Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  Europe,  ed.  1884,  III,  pp.  309-325. 

*Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  or  the  Finest  Scenes,  Lyrics,  and  Other  Beauties  of  tht 
Two  Poets,  etc.     See  Introduction,  Remarks  on  Beaumont  and  Fletcher. 

'Essays  on  the  Drama  and  Popular  Amusements,  ed.  1863,  pp.  50-52. 

"A  Compendious  History  of  English  Literature,  ed.  1890,  I,  pp.  600-603. 

^Chapters  in  the  History  of  English  Literature  from  1589  to  the  Close  of  the 
Eheahethan  Period,  pp.  258-283. 

^Encyclopedia  Britannica.     Article  on  Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  pp.  469-474. 


PROBLEMS    OF    AUTHORSHIP.  19 

was  for  tragedy  and  broad  farce,  Fletcher's  was  for  the  heroic  romance 
and  high  comedy.^  Bullen  (1889)^  continues  the  exaltation  of  Beaumont 
in  finding  him  richer  in  versification  and  more  stately  and  strenuous  in 
manner,  while  Lowell  (1892),^  furnishes  an  interesting  contrast  by 
championing  Fletcher  as  the  riper,  graver,  more  picturesque  of  the 
two  and  in  all  respects  the  greater  poet. 

From  all  these  writers,  however,  we  have  rather  affirmation  than 
proof,  and  while  it  is  evident  that  the  center  of  interest  has  shifted 
almost  steadily  since  Seward's  time  from  Fletcher  to  Beaumont,  there 
is  little  closely  critical  evidence  in  justification  of  the  change.  It  is  to 
the  metrical  critics  that  we  must  look  chiefly  for  this,  and  in  order 
to  follow  the  line  of  their  work  uninterruptedly  we  go  back  some  years 
at  this  point.  The  account  of  their  researches  perhaps  admits  of  some 
detail,  both  because  of  the  importance  of  its  bearing  on  our  later  investi- 
gation and  because  of  the  necessity  for  fairly  minute  explanation  in 
order  to  render  it  intelligible. 

Fleay's  paper*  on  metrical  tests  as  applied  to  Beaumont,  Fletcher 
and  Massinger,  which  was  read  before  the  Xew  Shakspere  Society  in 
1874,  marks  a  departure  in  the  method  of  apportioning  the  plays.  He 
brings  to  bear  upon  them  a  system  of  tests  already  applied  by  him  to 
the  doubtful  plays  of  Shakspere,  and  by  means  of  it  distributes  them 
by  acts,  scenes  or  lines,  according  to  the  indications  of  the  metre,  mak- 
ing his  chief  allotments  to  Beaumont,  Fletcher  and  Massinger,  but  in- 
cluding also,  as  Weber  had  done,  Shirley,  Middleton,  Kowley,  Field,  Jon- 
son,  and  in  addition  Dekker,  in  the  list  of  contributing  authors.  He 
divides  the  plays  into  three  groups  of  seventeen  each  :^ 

I.  Those  before  Beaumont's  death. 

II.  Those  by  Fletcher  alone — (presumably  later  than  the  first). 

III.  Those  by  Fletcher  and  others  not  Beaumont,  or  not  by 
Fletcher  at  all. 

The  second  group  of  plays  is  made  the  starting  point  for  investiga- 
tion, because  of  evidence — documentary  and  otherwise — of  their  being 
Fletcher's.  By  close  examination  of  the  metre  of  these  plays,  Fleay 
satisfies  himself  that  its  chief  marks  are  the  following: 

U  study  of  Shakspere,  ed.  1880,  p.  89,  note. 

"Dictionary  of  National  Biography   (1889).     Article  on  Fletcher,  pp.  301-311. 

sQZrf  English  Dramatists,  ed.  1892,  pp.  100-102. 

^Metrical  Tests  as  Applied  to  Drarnatic  Poetry,  Part  II.  Fletcher,  Beaumont, 
Ma-sainger.     New  Sh.   Soc,   1874,  pp.  51-72. 

^He  omits  from  this  group  Henry  VIII  and  The  Two  Nohle  Kiitsmcn  as  chiefly 
Shakspere's  and  The  Laxca  of  (Jo/ndy  as  not  belonging  at  all  to  either  Beaumont  or 
Fletcher. 


20  BEAUMONT-FLETCHER    PLAYS. 

(1)  The  prevalence  of  double  endings — the  range  in  a  play  being 
from  1,500  to  2,000. 

(2)  The  use  of  end-stopt  lines  in  connection  with  double  endings. 

(3)  A  moderate  use  of  rhyme. 

(4)  A  moderate  use  of  lines  of  less  than  five  measures. 

(5)  No  prose. 

(6)  Many  trisyllabic  feet,  so  that  the  verse  does  not  easily  lend 
itself  to  scansion  or  to  the  detection  of  alexandrines. 

Having,  in  this  way,  arrived  at  what  appears  to  him  to  be  Fletcher's 
characteristic  method  of  verse,  Fleay  makes  a  similar  study  of  the  plays 
commonly  accepted  as  Massinger's.  From  these  he  concludes  Massin- 
ger's  range  of  double  endings  to  be  900-1,200 ;  his  aversion  to  prose  to 
be  fully  as  marked  as  Fletcher's;  his  use  of  rhyme  similarly  moderate; 
and  his  tendency  to  lines  of  less  than  five  measures  not  so  frequent  as 
Fletcher's. 

Beaumont's  metrical  style  he  discovers  by  applying  the  tests  for 
Fletcher  to  The  Four  Plays  in  One — that  obviously  having  been  Avritten 
before  Beaumont's  death.  In  it  he  finds  the  first  two  plays  to  be 
markedly  different  in  versification  from  the  last  two,  which  meet  all  the 
requirements  for  Fletcher.  He  feels  justified,  therefore,  in  concluding 
that  the  first  are  by  Beaumont,  and  from  them  he  deduces  the  following 
metrical  peculiarities : 

(1)  A  much  smaller  proportion  of  double-endings  than  obtains 
in  Fletcher's  work. 

(2)  A  tendency  to  incomplete  and  run-on  lines. 

(3)  Rhyme. 

(4)  Use  of  prose. 

Applying  these  several  tests  to  the  three  main  groups  of  plays,  he 
assigns  to  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  jointly  fourteen  of  the  plays  written 
before  the  former's  death,  and  gives  to  Massinger  a  part  in  eight  of  those 
belonging  to  the  third  group,  with  a  possibility  of  his  share  in  two 
others. 

Fleay's  paper  was  vigorously  debated  at  the  meeting  before  which  it 
was  read  and  various  defects  and  dangers  in  his  method  were  at  once 
pointed  out.  Indeed,  he  himself  came  to  recognize  manv  errors  in  his 
first  conchisions,  and  in  a  later  paper*  modified  them  and  undertook  to 
establish  more  careful  chronological  foundations. 

In  spite  of  ail  Fleay's  mistakes,  however,  the  movement  which  he 

^On  fhr  (ihronnJotJii  of  the  PtOj/s  of  I'lrtchrr  niul  Massini/cr.  in  Eii{;.  Stud..  IX, 
pp.  12-35.      (1886.) 


PROBLEMS    OF    AUTHORSHIP.  21 

had  initiated  was  an  important  one  and  quickly  attracted  attention.  In 
1882  Robert  Boyle  began  a  series  of  articles  in  Engliscke  Studieii,^  which 
took  up  the  same  line  of  research  and  elaborated  Fleay's  plan  into  one 
somewhat  safer  and  broader  in  its  procedure.  The  series  came,  however, 
iii  part  at  least,  as  a  protest  against  Fleay's  tendency  to  give  Fletcher 
Aoo  large  a  share  in  the  plays,  and  soon  made  it  evident  that  with  Boyle 
the  emphasis  was  shifted  to  Massinger. 

The  study  included  some  examination  of  the  style  of  each  of  the 
three  dramatists — Beaumont,  Fletcher,  and  Massinger — and  laid  great 
stress  on  the  literary  qualities  as  corroborative  of  the  testimony  of  the 
metrical.  Fleay's  tests  were  pronounced  inadequate  and,  in  some  cases, 
otherwise  faulty.  Thus  rhyme  and  prose  could  afford  no  proof  in  decisions 
between  Fletcher  and  Massinger,  because  both  Fletcher  and  Massinger 
avoided  the  use  of  either,  and  so  these  tests  would  be  of  value  only  in 
distinguisliing  betvr-een  Fletcher  and  Beaumont.  The  short  line  test 
Boyle  rejected  entirely,  while  that  of  the  double  ending  was  the  only 
one  which  seemed  to  him  useful  for  all  cases,  because  of  the  different 
proportions  of  such  endings  to  be  found  in  each  dramatist's  accepted 
V^ork.  To  this  last  test,  along  with  the  restricted  use  of  rhyme  and  the 
prose  tests,  he  added  three  others,  light  and  weak  endings,  and  run- 
on  lines.  The  result  of  his  investigation  was  a  conviction  that  Beau- 
mont and  Massinger  had  the  same  metrical  qualities  though  in  different 
degrees,  while  Fletcher,  being  older,  was  less  affected  than  either  of  the 
other  two  by  the  new  fashions  in  verse,  (in  the  sixty-nine  plays  taken 
to  contain  all  the  authentic  work  of  Beaumont,  Fletcher  and  Massin- 
ger, Beaumont  is  given  a  part  in  twelve,  Massinger  a  part  with  Fletcher 
alone  in  seventeen,  Fletcher  sixteen  alone,  and  Massinger  fourteert. 

Boyle's  study  of  Massinger's  literary  style  and  his  enlarge- 
ment of  the  scheme  of  metrical  tests  were  the  definite  contributions 
which  he  made  to  the  investigation  under  discussion.  His  zeal  for  Mas- 
singer was  doubtless  pushed  too  far,  but  it  was  soon  counterbalanced  by 
the  appearance  in  the  field  of  two  champions  for  Beaumont. 

In  Macaulay's  study  of  Beaumont,'  Avhich  appeared  while  Boyle's 
scries  of  articles  was  in  progress  (1883),  we  have  a  revival  of  Seward's 
effort  to  define  the  figure  of  Beaumont  more  clearly.  The  effort  was 
far  more  successful  than  the  earlier  one  had  been  because  the  author 
proceeded  by  more  careful  and  genuinely  critical  methods.  He  built 
to  some  extent  upon  a  revision  of  Fleay's  results  and  made  a  valuable 


^Beaumont,  Fletcher  and  Massinger,  Eng.  Stud.,  V,  VII,  VIII.  IX,  X.     (1882-7.) 
>frunci8  Beaumont,  A  Critical  Stud}/.     G.  C.  Macaulay,  London,  1S83, 


OF  THE 

^^/IVER3ITY 

OF 


22  BEAUMONT-FLETCHER    PLAYS. 

study  of  the  metrical  peculiarities  of  both  Fletcher  and  Beaumont,  but 
he  was  not  content  "with  defining  the  limits  of  their  production,  and — 
at  least  for  Beaumont — souglit  to  construct  a  real  literary  individuality. 
He  distinguislied  so  sliarply,  however,  between  the  two  dramatists,  not 
only  in  the  more  common  literary  qualities,  but  in  the  subtler  matters  of 
wit  and  morality,  that  Herford  is  liardly  unjust  in  declaring  that  the 
critic  at  times  appears  to  have  lost  his  sense  of  the  finer  points  of  con- 
tact between  the  two.^ 

Oliphant-  was  the  second  of  these  defenders  of  Beaumont's  claim 
and  reverted  definitely  to  the  school  of  the  metrical  tests,  although,  like 
Boyle,  he  protested  against  over-emphasis  upon  such  tests  and  devoted. 
a  considerable  portion  of  his  discussion  to  the  treatment  of  the  literary 
characteristics  of  the  plays.  His  main  contention,  however,  was  for  an 
expansion  of  Parley's  suggestion — that  many  of  the  doubtful  plays  were 
first  written  by  Beaumont  alone,  or  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  together, 
and  later  rewritten  by  other  authors.  By  placing  the  beginnings  of  the 
literary  partnership  as  early  as  160-1,  he  contrives  a  plausible  assignment 
to  Beaumont  of  a  part  in  twenty-three  plays,  besides  the  masque  and  a 
possible  part  in  Uvo  other  plays.  Pie  does  this,  too,  without  detracting 
appreciably  from  Fletcher's  supposed  contribution  to  the  whole  mass  of 
plays,  because  most  of  those  involved  in  liis  decisions  belong  to  a  group  in 
which  it  seems  clear  that  Fletcher  had,  at  best,  only  a  part. 

Thorndike,^  who  is  the  last  of  those  that  have  made  detailed  ex- 
amination into  the  metrical  tests,  seems  inclined  to  accept  Oiiphant's 
general  conclusion  that  the  date  for  the  beginnings  of  collaboration  by 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher  is  as  early  as  1605,  but  finds  meagre  support 
for  Oliphant's  assignments  to  Beaumont.* 

Looking  back  from  this  point  over  the  labors  of  critics,  it  at  least 
seems  clear  that  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  may  no  longer  be  regarded  as 
one  and  inseparable.     In  the  midst  of  the  confusion  of  literary  and  mct- 

iReview  of  Macaulay's  study  Academy,  XXIV,  p.  409. 

""Eng.  Bind.,  XIV,  XV,  XVI,  1890-02. 

^The  Influence  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  on  Shakespeare.  Ashley  II.  Tliorudike, 
Worcester,  1901.     See  p.  23. 

^Thorndike  himself  proposed  as  a  supplement  to  the  definitely  metrical  tests 
what  he  called  the  'cm-thcm  test,  finding  Fletcher's  tendency  to  use  'em  for  them 
most  marked,  Masj^inger's  practice  invariably  against  it  and  Beaumont's  less  certain. 
The  test  would  therefore  be  valuable  in  distinguishing  between  Fletcher  and  Mas- 
singer,  although  useless  in  -connection  with  Beaumont.  Ibid.,  pp.  24-29.  Later,  how- 
ever, in  an  addendum  to  his  hook,  Thorndike  retracts  this  test  as  not  being  substan- 
tiated by  an  original  quartos  of  Massinger  recently  examined  by  him,  inasmuch  as  the 
proportion  of  'emu  and  ihems  found  in  these  was  different  from  those  elsewhere  dis- 
covered. Those  for  Beaumont,  Fletcher  and  Shakspere,  however,  were  corroborative  of 
Thorndike's  claims  in  connection  with  them. 


PROBLEMS    OF    AUTHORSHIP.  23 

rical  standards  and  the  conflicting  opinions  that  inevitably  result,  two 
individualities  have  outlined  themselves,  and  while  we  shall  probably 
never  be  able  to  discriminate  between  them  everywhere  or  with  unerring 
precision,  it  must  surely  be  an  undertaking  of  interest  to  discover  more 
fully  the  distinctive  artistic  and  spiritual  traits  which  each  merged  into  a 
common  dramatic  activity. 

Since  the  reaction  set  in  against  the  early  injustice  to  Beaumont, 
criticism  has  been  busy  discovering  his  points  of  superiority  to  Fletcher, 
and  it  is  chiefly  these  which  Macaulay  has  unified  and  emphasized  in  his 
study  of  Beaumont.  If,  in  his  zeal  for  his  subject,  he  has  seemed 
able  to  grant  to  Fletcher  few  but  the  undesirable  or  negative  traits,  it 
is  only  because  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  had — as  Seward  insisted — along 
with  their  strong  affinities,  certain  definite  differences  of  gifts;  and  a 
continuous  insistence  on  the  merits  of  one  inevitably  tends  to  throw  the 
other  into  a  hazy  and  unflattering  background. 

It  is  one  of  the  assumptions  on  which  this  study  rests — and  one 
perhaps  justifiable  in  view  of  the  proofs  brought  forward  by  Macaulay 
and  others — that  Fletcher  was  somewhat  below  Beaumont  in  the  deeper 
intellectual  and  spiritual  traits.  That  he  evinced,  however,  in  his  work 
an  individuality  fully  as  marked  as  Beaumont's  and  in  some  points  more 
highly  endowed  are  facts  which  admit  of  equally  clear  demonstration. 
Such  a  demonstration  has  not  yet  been  attempted,  and  it  is  the  purpose 
of  this  study  to  suggest  its  beginnings. 


II. 

PLAN  AND  MATERIAL. 

The  method  proposed  in  this  study  is  a  simple  one.  Those  plays 
which,  by  general  consent  of  critics/  are  accredited  entirely  to  Fletcher, 
will  be  taken  as  a  basis  for  investigation,  and  some  deductions  as  to  hie 
attitude  and  working  principles  will  be  attempted  from  them.  In  gen- 
eral, no  effort  will  be  made  either  to  controvert  or  to  confirm  any  of  the 
decisions  of  critics  as  to  the  authorship  of  disputed  plays. 

The  whole  body  of  plays  commonly  attributed  to  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher  will,  for  convenience,  be  considered  in  three  groups,  and  single 
plays  will  be  referred  to  as  of  Group  I,  II,  or  III. 

(1).  Group  I  consists  of  those  plays  in  which  critics  agree  to  give 
Beaumont  at  least  a  part,  viz. :  Philaster,  The  Maid's  Tragedy,  A  King 
and  No  Kingy  The  Knight  of  the  Burning  Pestle  and  The  Scornful 
Lady.  To  this  group  The  Woman  Hater  may  now  surely  be  added, 
although  Dyce  in  1854  still  claimed  it  entirely  for  Fletcher.  The 
Masque  of  the  Inner  Temple  is  quite  generally  given  to  Beaumont  alone. 

(2)  In  Group  II  are  included  the  plays  which  are  accredited  to 
Fletcher  alone:  Monsieur  Thomas,  WitWithout  Money,  The  Loyal  Sub- 
ject, Bonduca,"^  The  Mad  Lover,  The  Humorous  Lieutenant,  Valen- 
tinian.  Women  Pleased,  The  I sland\ Princess,'  The  Pilgrims,  The  Wild 
Goose  Chase,  The  Chances,  The  Woman's  Prize,  Rule  a  Wife  and  Have 

^Two  exceptions,  however,  are  given  in  notes   (2)   and   (3). 

^Oliphant  (Eng.  Stud.,  XV,  p.  335)  suggests  that  this  play  is  a  revision  of  an 
early  play  of  Beaumont's,  though  retaining  little  of  the  original  material,  I  have  seen 
no  sign  of  the  general  adoption  of  his  suggestion,  however,  and  so  have  felt  justified 
In  still  retaining  in  this  group  so  important  and  characteristic  a  play. 

^One  of  the  younger  critics,  Mr.  A.  S.  W.  Rosenbach,  who  in  December,  1902, 
read  a  paper  before  The  Modern  Language  Association  on  The  Spanish  Sources  of 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  is  Inclined  to  attribute  to  Massinger  a  part  in  The  Islatui 
Princess.  This  view  does,  of  course,  disturb  the  unanimity  of  verdict  on  which  the 
present  assignment  of  plays  claims  to  be  based  ;  but  it  has  been  thought  best  to  retain 
the  play  in  group  II  for  the  purposes  of  the  present  study,  both  because  Mr.  Rosen- 
bach's  argument  is  still  unpublished  and  also  because  the  present  writer — In  this  case 
also  taking  the  judicial  attitude — feels  that  the  resemblances  to  Massinger's  own  plays, 
while  certainly  very  strong  In  some  respects,  are  not  so  conclusive  as  to  make  hl» 
collaboration  indispensable.  No  striking  inferences  as  to  Fletcher's  dramatic  method, 
however,  will  be  based  upon  this  play  since  there  seems  some  real  ground  for  uncer- 
tainty. 

24 


PLAN    AND    MATEKIAL.  25 

a  Wife,  and  A  Wife  for  a  Month.    The  Faithful  Shepherdess,  although 

well  authenticated  as  Fletcher's^  will  not  usually  be  discussed  along 
'  with  the  other  plays  of  Group  II,  because  of  its  essential  difference  from 
i  them  in  nature  and  technique.  The  Four  Plays  in  One — now  divided 
1  between  Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  Beaumont  being  given  the  Induction 
1  and  the  Triumphs  of  Honor  and  of  Love  and  Fletcher  the  Triumphs  of 
I  Death  and  of  Time — will  for  the  same  reason  be  omitted.    Exception 

from  this  rule  will  be  indicated  wherever  this  is  necessary  for  clearness. 
(3)     Group  III  contains  all  the  remaining  plays  in  which  Fletcher 

is  commonly   supposed  to  have  had  a   share,   and  includes    two    Bub- 

groups :' 

(a)  Those  plays  in  which  Beaumont's  collaboration  seems  possible, 
but  considerably  more  doubtful  than  in  those  of  Group  I :  Cupid's  Re- 
venge, The  Coxcomb,  The  Captain,  Thierry  and  Theodoret,  Wit  at  Sev- 
eral Weapons  and  The  Knight  of  Malta. 

(b)  Plays  in  which  Fletcher  apparently  collaborated  with  others 
than  Beaumont  or  in  which  the  earlier  work  of  one  or  both  of  the  two 
seems  to  have  been  revised  or  completed  by  others.  These  are:  Nice 
Valour  or  The  Passionate  Madman,  The  Little  Thief  or  The  Night 
Walker,  The  Beggar's  Bush,  The  Honest  Man's  Fortune,  Love's  Pil- 
grimage, The  Bloody  Brother  or  Polio,  Duke  of  Normandy,  The  Queen 
of  Corinth,  The  Custom  of  the  Country,  The  Double  Marriage,  The 
Luws  of  Candy,  The  Little  French  Jjawyer,  The  False  One,  The  Prophet- 
esSf  The  Se^  Voyage,  The  Spanish  Curate,  The  Maid  in  the  Mill,  The 
Lover's  Progress^  The  Fair  Maid  of  the  Inn,  The  Nolle  Gentleman,  The 
Elder  Brother,  IjOvc's  Cure  or  The  Martial  Maid  and  The  Ttvo  Noble 
Kinsmen.  The  following  might  also  be  added  to  this  group,  although 
the  problems  involved  in  their  authorship  are  great  enough  to  justify 
their  omission  from  such  a  study  as  this :  The  Faithful  Friends,  Henry 
VIII,  Sir  John  Van  Olden  Barnavclt  and  The  Widow.^ 

Group  II  is,  of  course,  the  one  for  our  primary  interest  and  in- 
cludes all  the  material  with  which  our  study  is  closely  concerned.  Where 
other  plays  are  introduced,  it  will  usually  be  done  to  draw  supporting 
evidence  from  them  by  pointing  out  their  likeness  to  plays  of  Group  II 
or  differences  from  them.     Suggestions  may  at  times  be  hazarded  as  to 


"These  subdivisions  cannot  always  be  rigidly  observed,  Inasmuch  as  critics  flnfl 
traces  of  other  writers  than  either  Beaumont  or  Fletcher  In  (a)  ;  while  Reaumont 
Is  granted  by  some  a  share  In  several  of  the  plays  under  (b).  The  distinction  fol- 
lows the  more  conservative  lines,  however,  and  may  be  useful  for  our  purposes 
without  leading  Into  misapprehensions. 

^The  lost  plays,  Cafdenio,  The  Jeweller  of  Aniftterihun,  and  Mndoo  will  not  be 
considered. 


26  BEAUMONT-FLETCHER    PLAYS. 

the  striking  cliaracteristics  of  Groups  I  and  III,  but,  in  general,  the 
effort  will  be  made  to  keep  well  in  the  background  all  other  plays  but 
those  selected  for  especial  study,  so  that  a  distinct  and  unified  impres- 
sion of  these  may  be  gained.  This  course  commends  itself  also  for  its 
safety;  for  while  it  is  recognized  that  Fletcher  probably  had  the  guid- 
ing hand  in  most  of  the  plays  of  Group  III,  there  is  always  danger  of 
unjustifiable  inferences  in  tracing  that  hand  until  his  method  has  been 
more  clearly  discovered  from  the  plays  in  which  he  appears  te  have 
worked  alone.^ 

It  must  be  confessed  that  most  of  the  documentary  evidence  as  to 
Fletcher's  authorship  of  the  plays  of  this  second  group  is  of  a  distinctly 
negative  or  non-contradictory  sort,  the  only  play  adequately  authenticated 
being  The  Humorous  Lieutenant,  of  which  there  is  a  manuscript  copy 
dated  1625  and  declaring  Fletcher  to  be  its  author. 

The  Wild  Ooose  Chase  is  certified  to  as  Fletcher's  in  the  edition 
of  1652  by  the  actors  Lowin  and  Taylor,  who  declare  that  they  have 
seen  it  played  before  him  with  such  success  that  he  himself  was  forced 
to  approve  "the  rare  issue  of  his  brain"  and  join  in  the  loud  applause. 
This  would  seem,  on  the  whole,  convincing  testimony,  but  is  not  incon- 
trovertible. 

For  The  Mad  Lover,  Dyce^'  accepts  Cockaine's  declaration^  that 
it  was  Fletcher's,  and  for  Monsieur  Thomas,  Richard  Brome's  statement 
in  his  address  to  Charles  Cotton  prefixed  to  an  early  quarto  of  the  play. 
Later  critics,  however,  tend  to  discount  the  evidence  of  the  early  versi- 
fiers and  writers  of  dedications,  prologues,  epilogues,  etc.,  as  regards 
the  authorship  of  separate  plays. 

In  regard  to  Bonduca,  Valentinian,  The  Mad  Lover,  and  The  Loyal 
Subject  it  is  clear  that  they  could  not  have  been  later  than  March, 
1618-19,  since  Burbage,  who  died  at  this  time,  is  named  in  the  1679 
folio  as  one  of  the  actors  in  each  of  the  four  plays.  It  seems  probable, 
moreover,  that  they  were  not  written  before  1611,  the  time  near  which 

^Whilo  no  organized  discussion  is  attempted  as  to  the  relative  shares  of  Beaumont 
and  Fletcher  in  the  plays  of  group  I,  this  study  rests  to  some  extent  on  the  theory 
that  Beaumont's  Influence  was  dominant  In  them.  The  view  Is  based  on  a  com- 
parison of  them  not  (^nly  with  Fletcher's  exclusive  group  but  also  with  the  plays 
of  group  III.  The  striking  differences  between  I  and  II  and  the  equally  striking 
resemblances  between  II  and  III  Indicate  that  the  paramount  Influence  In  I  was 
dlfTerent  from  that  in  the  later  plays  and  that  Influence  would,  in  all  probability, 
hare  been  Beaumont's.  This  theory^  however,  applies  only  In  a  general  way  and 
must  be  understood  as  being  sufliciently  elastic  to  allow  for  many  qualifications  and 
debatable  details. 

2I)yee  ed.,   II,  7. 

"Commendatory  Verses.  1C47  folio.     See  Dyce  ed.,  I,  59. 


PLAN    AND    MATERIAL.  2T 

Beaumont  is  thought  to  have  left  off  writing:  hence  they  may  quite 
reasonably  be  assigned  to  the  period  when  Fletcher  was  writing  alone. 

Rule  a  Wife  and  Have  a  Wife  and  A  Wife  for  a  Month  were  li- 
censed by  Sir  Henry  Herbert  in  1624  and  Women  Pleased  would  seem, 
from  the  omission  of  Burbage's  name  from  the  actors'  list,  to  have  been 
later  than  1619,  but  these  dates  prove  nothing  except  the  unlikelihood 
•of  Beaumont's  having  had  a  part  in  the  plays,  inasmuch  as  he  died  in 
1605. 

Herbert's  Office  Book^  states  The  Woman's  Prize,  The  Loyal  Sub- 
ject and  The  Faithful  Shepherdess  to  be  Fletcher's.^  This  evidence 
has  always  been  received  without  question,  but  Herbert's  varied  state- 
ments about  The  Night  Walker^  show  that  he  was  not  always  careful 
to  record  details  of  authorship,  while  his  entries  are  at  times  too  am- 
biguous to  make  dogmatic  conclusions  from  them  safe.  Thus  Dyce, 
following  Malone,  accepts  as  Fletcher's  The  Island  Princess,  The  Pil- 
grim and  The  Wild  Goose  Chase,^  because  the  Herbert  Manuscript  states 
them  to  have  been  given  at  Court  in  1625  and  also  declares  it  to  have 
been  the  custom  for  all  plays  which  Fletcher  had  made  during  the  year 
to  be  performed  at  Court  at  Christmas  time.  This,  however,  would  not 
t>e  irrefutable  evidence,  unless  it  could  be  proved  that  no  plays  but  his 
were  given  then,  and  that  only  such  of  his  were  given  as  had  been  written 
by  him  without  assistance.  Neither  Malone  nor  Dyce  makes  any  at- 
tempt to  establish  either  of  these  conditions. 

^In  Malone's  Shakespeare,  ed.  Boswell,  III,  pp.  224-243. 

2"On  Thursday  night  at  St.  James,  the  28  of  Novemb.,  1633,  was  acted  befdre  the 
King  and  Queen  The  Tattler  Tamed,  made  by  Fletcher.     Very  well  likt." 

"On  Tuesday  night  at  Whitehall  the  10  of  Decemb.,  1633,  was  acted  before  the 
King  and  Queen  The  Loyal  Subject,  made  by  Fletcher  and  very  well  likt  by  tlie 
King."     Ibid.,   Ill,  p.  234.  "v 

^         "On   Monday    night   the    sixth    of   January    (1633  4)    and    the   Twelfe    Night   wa»  ) 
I    presented  at   Denmark  house  before  the   King  and  Queene  Fletcher's  pastorall   called  C^ 
C    the   Faithfull    Shcpheardesse   in   the   cloathes    the    Queene  had  given   Taylor   the  yeax  f 
I  'before  In  her  owne  pastorall."  J 

>>■    I—  [This  last  play  is.  moreover,  certified  to  by  various  other  testimonies.]  ^"-^ 

^"The  Night   WalJcer  was   acted   on   Thursday   night,    the   30    Janu.,    1633    [4]    at 
court  before  the  King  and  Queen.     Likt  as  a  merry  play.     Made  by  Fletcher." 
HI,  p.  23. 

At  another  point  is  this  entry  : 

"For  a  play  of  Fletcher's  corrected  by  Shirley,  called  the  Night  Walkers  tht 
11  May,  1623,  £2  0." 

«Dyce  ed.,  II,  p.  281. 

"It  appears,"  says  Malone,  "from  Sir  Ilenpy  Herbert's  manuscript  that  the  new 
{>Iaya  which  Fletcher  had  brought  out  in  the  course  of  the  year  were  generally 
presented  at  court  at  Christmas.  As  therefore  The  Island  Princess,  The  Pilgrim;  and 
'The  Wild  Ooose  Chase  are  found  among  the  court  exhibitions  of  the  year  1621,  we 
need  not  hesitate  to  ascribe  these  pieces  also  to  the  same  poet."  Malone's  Shakes- 
jpeare,  ed.  Boswell,  III,  p.  225. 


28 


BEAUMONT-FLETCHEE    PLAYS. 


The  Chances  offers  no  clue  to  its  date. 

In  view,  then,  of  the  haziness  of  outline  which  the  subject  still 
maintains,  there  is  evidently  much  room  for  a  study  of  this  group  of 
the  Beaumont- Fletcher  plays  as  a  means  of  discovering  Fletcher's  dis- 
tinctive dramatic  method.  If  this  can  be  clearly  established  it  will  not 
only  serve  to  complete  the  chain  of  proof  of  the  authenticity  of  the 
plays  already  generally  granted  to  him,  but  will  furnish  aid  in  ascer- 
taining his  part  in  those  plays  to  which  his  relation  is  more  doubtful." 


iThls  latter  task,  however,  is  not  attempted  in  this  thesis,  which  undertakes 
only  the  exposition  of  Fletcher's  method  as  shown  in  the  plays  of  group  II.  The 
writer  hopes,  however,  to  present  in  a  later  study  the  result  cf  the  application  of 
these  tests  to  groups  I  and  III. 


III. 

FLETCHER'S  BELATION   TO   THE   HISTORICAL  DEVELOP- 
MENT OF  THE  LEADING  FORMS  OF  THE  DRAMA. 

The  Beaumont-Fletcher  plays  occupy  so  important  a  place  in  the 
general  development  of  the  drama  that  a  word  is  necessary  as  to  Fletch- 
er's relation  to  each  of  its  more  important  forms. 

On  the  whole,  Fletcher  was  not  addicted  to  rigid  dramatic  forms. 
Lacking  Shakspere's  subtlety  in  combinations,  he  was  like  him  in  the 
frequent  mixture  of  his  tones,  and  for  that  reason  it  is  sometimes  hard 
to  determine  what  is  meant  to  be  the  prevailing  spirit  of  a  play,  and 
whether  to  classify  it  as  comedy  or  tragi-comedy ;  or  whether  as  tragi- 
comedy or  tragedy.  Fletcher  himself,  however,  has  essayed  a  definition  of 
the  chief  dramatic  genres,  and  we  shall  perhaps  most  easily  arrive  at  his 
own  classification  of  his  plays  by  subjecting  them  to  the  tests  which  he 
establishes. 

"A  tragi-comedy,"  he  declares,  in  the  well-known  introduction  to 
The  Faithful  Shepherdess,  '^is  not  so  called  in  respect  of  mirth  and 
killing,  but  in  respect  it  wants  death,  which  is  enough  to  make  it  no 
tragedy,  yet  brings  some  near  it,  which  is  enough  to  make  it  no  comedy, 
which  must  be  a  representation  of  familiar  people  with  such  kind  of 
trouble  as  no  life  be  questioned,  so  that  a  god  is  as  lawful  in  this  as  in  a 
tragedy  and  mean  people  as  in  a  comedy."' 

If,  then,  we  follow  these  lines  of  division,  assigning  as  tragedies 
those  which  contain  death ;  as  tragi-comedies  those  which  bring  some 
near  death,  and  as  comedies  those  which  show  ordinary  people  in  the 
milder  forms  of  distress,  we  shall  have  the  following  grouping:* 

Pastoral   (tragi-comedy) — The  Faithful  Shepherdess. 

Tragi-comedies — The  Loyal  Subject,  The  Mad  Lover,  Women 
Pleased,  The  Island  Princess,  A  Wife  for  a  Month,  The  Humorous 
Lieutenant,  Monsieur  Thomas. 

^The  Faithful  Shepherdess.      To  the  Reader. 

*The  folio  of  1647  recognizes  only  comedies  and  tragedies  besides  the  masque : 
that  of  1679,  however,  Includes  tragl-comedy  In  Its  divisions,  but  does  not  alwayi.  In 
Its   classification,   accept   Fletcher's  lines  of   demarcation. 

29 


30  BEAUMONT-FLETCHER    PLAYS. 

Tragedies — Valentinian,  Bonduca. 

Comedies — Wit  Without  Money,  The  Pilgrim,  The  Wild  Goose 
Chase,  The  Chances,  Rule  a  Wife  and  Have  a  Wife. 

The  Triumph  of  Death  and  The  Triumph  of  Time,  if  we  attempt 
to  classify  them,  would  probably  fall  under  different  heads,  the  first 
being  definitely  a  tragedy  and  the  second  a  sort  of  morality-masque,  if 
the  phrase  be  allowed,  and  so  to  be  classed  alone.  Coming  then  to  dis- 
cuss somewhat  in  detail  Fletcher's  adaptation  of  these  types,  we  have  first 
the  pastoral  drama. 

(1)  The  Pastoral  Drama.  Although  Fletcher  by  no  means  created 
the  English  pastoral  drama,  he  did  much  to  fix  its  artistic  conditions. 
The  realistic  treatment  is  shown  in  Jonson's  Sad  Shepherd,  where  there 
is  a  distinct,  and,  in  the  main,  successful  attempt  to  get  away  from  the 
.artificiality  of  the  early  Arcadian  models  and  present  an  actual  outdoor 
life.  Jonson  is  cited  by  Drummond  as  blaming  Guarini  because  he 
"keept  not  decorum  in  making  his  shepherds  speak  as  well  as  himself 
could."'  In  his  own  pastoral,  too,  Jonson  avoids  that  snare,  as  well  as 
its  opposite,  by  a  dialogue  which  is  spicy  without  being  either  learned 
or  clownish,  while  his  plot  is  developed  through  natural  and  interest- 
ing situations. 

Fletcher,  on  the  other  hand,  conceived  of  the  pastoral  as  artistically 
remote  from  actual  life  and  even  to  please  his  audience  would  not  make 
it  "a  play  of  country-hired  shepherds  with  curtailed  dogs  in  strings."- 
in  this  way  he  missed  the  more  vital  interest  and  reality  which  Jonson 
gained,  but  the  justification  of  his  method  lies  in  the  fact  that  the 
pastoral,  if  it  follows  all  its  earlier  traditions,  either  of  the  Sicilian 
«r  the  Arcadian  sort,  is  essentially  a  conventionalized  literary  form  and 
makes  its  appeal  through  aesthetic  gratification  rather  than  by  a  verac- 
ious presentation  of  life.     The  talk  of  the  ordinary  shepherd  has  its 
points  of  interest,  but  it  could  hardly  meet  the  demands  upon  the  pas-     a 
toral  for  delicate  poetic  quality,  while  an  elaborate  plot  would  almost     i 
inevitably  cheapen  the  species  by  carrying  it  over  into  the  sphere  of 
the  ordinary  drama.    Just  so  far  as  Jonson  ignored  these  considerations     I 
he  departed  from  the  true  spirit  of  the  pastoral. 

That  Fletcher  felt  this  aloofness  of  the  form  is  evident  from  the 
fact  that  in  using  it  he  adopted  a  treatment  distinct  in  almost  every 
point  from  that  wliich  he  followed  in  his  other  plays.  Not  only  does 
he  introduce  a  different  metrical  scheme,  but  here,  as  nowhere  else,  he 

AOA«^^^  ./on«on'«  Conversations  with  William  Drummond  of  Hawthomeden.     Sh.  Soc, 
1840.   p.   4. 

'The  Faithful  Shepherdess.     To  the  Reader. 


FLETCHER  'S  RELATION  TO  LEADING  FORMS  OF  DRAMA.  31 

i^ubordinates  the  plot  interest  to  subtler  considerations  and  efiects,  keeps 
down  his  predilection  for  complications  and  conventions,  except  snch 
as  will  harmonize  with  the  central  idea,  and  even  omits  much  of  the 
plot  of  his  Italian  source — The  Pastor  Fido^  wliich^  in  his  search  for  ma- 
terial, would  usually  offer  a  strong  appeal  to  him — all  in  order  that  he 
may  obtain,  a  simplicity  of  impression  and  unity  of  tone.  That  he 
also  realized  the  small  possibilities  of  stage  effectiveness  in  the  method 
which  he  followed  is  practically  certain  from  his  constant  attention  in 
other  plays  to  stage  success,  as  well  as  from  the  fact  that  he  appears 
to  have  kept  this  play  in  its  early  form  in  spite  of  its  utter  failure  on 
its  first  presentation.  If  such  an  inference  is  justifiable,  The  Faithful 
Shepherdess  becomes  interesting  as  apparently  the  only  instance  of 
Fletcher's  fidelity  to  a  high  artistic  instinct  when  it  was  weighed  in 
the  balance  against  stage  success.  What  the  play  lost  in  dramatic  power, 
however,  it  gained  in  progress  tow^ards  a  pure  art  form.  Jjld££i].' 
Fletcher  mav  almost  be  said  to  have  given  the  tvpe  its  distinctive  fgrm 
in  Enojish  literature,  since  Milton^giid  othprs  whr^  havp  r-m-np  affor  him 
have  apparentlv  accepted  hi>  jrlp^il  rafhpr  Ihan  .Jcm^n■(^L^ 

(2)  Tragi-comedy.  It  has  been  the  custom  of  critics  to  credit 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher  with  large  importance  in  the  establishment  of  the 
heroic  romance  on  the  stage  and  Thorndike-  is  suggesting  no  radical  de- 
parture from  accepted  opinion  in  making  this  view  the  basis  of  his  study 
of  the  influence  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  on  Shakspere.  The  point  to 
be  chiefly  noted  in  his  theory,  however,  is  its  shifting  of  the  earlier  tra- 
ditional emphasis;  for  whereas  it  has  been  the  fashion  to  regard  the 
younger  dramatists  as  following  Shakspere  and  confirming  a  type  which 
he  had  made  popular,  Thorndike  maintains  the  opposite  thesis,  that 
Shakspere  AA'as  led  to  the  production  of  his  romances  by  the  extreme 
popularity  of  the  earlier  efforts  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  in  this  direc- 
tion. To  establish  his  point  Thorndike  investigates  the  clironology  of 
Shakspere's  group,  Cymheline,  The  ]Vinlcr's  Tale,  and  The  Tempest 
and  having  shown  that  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  were  writing  before 
Shakspere  produced  Cymbeline,  the  first  of  his  group,  proves  the  proba- 
bility of  Fhilasters  havincr  been  of  an  earlier  date  than  Cymhcllne,  and 
of  six*^  of  the  Beaumont-Fletcher  romances  having  been  written  by  the 
time  that  Shakspere  had  written  his  three.     He  shows,  too,  by  a  search 

^The  play   is  founded  largely  on   Guarini's  11  Pastor  Fklo. 

"The  Influence  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  on  ^hakupere.  Ashley  II.  Thorndike 
(I'JOl). 

^Philastcr^  The  Maid's  Tragedy,  A  King  and  Xo  King,  Cupid's  Revenge,  Four  plays 
in  One,  Thievery  and  Thenderet.  Thorndike  builds  his  thesis  entirely  upon  these  six 
romances,  ^Ithough  he  grants  that  others  share  in  the  qualities. 


32  BEAUMONT-FLETCHER    PLAYS. 

into  the  stage  records  of  the  time  that  Shakspere  and  the  two  younger 
men  were  probably  brought  together  during  this  period  through  their 
writing  for  The  King  s  Men,  and  by  the  strong  indications  that  Fletcher 
worked  with  Shakspere  on  Henry  VIII  and  on  The  Ttvo  Nohle  Kins- 
men establishes  some  likelihood  of  a  close  association  and  of  mutual 
influence.  These  probabilities  having  been  presented,  Mr.  Thorndike 
undertakes  a  characterization  of  the  heroic  romance,  including  undor 
that  title  non-historical  heroic  plays,  such  as  have  been  cited 
in  tlie  two  groups  noted  above.  He  distinguishes  them  alike 
from  the  chronicle  histories,  the  revenge  plays  and  other  tragedies 
of  blood,  the  classical  and  domestic  tragedies  and  plays  of  any  sort 
which  are  dominated  by  one  interest  or  passion,  as  Othello,  Lear,  etc. 
He  finds  the  most  obvious  characteristics  of  this  class  to  be  "a  mixture 
of  tragic  and  idyllic  events,  a  series  of  highly  im,probable  events,  heroic 
and  sentimental  characters,  foreign  scenes,  happy  denouements.'"^  The 
combination  of  all  these  traits  he  takes  to  be  a  distinct  departure  from 
former  models  and  a  striking  contrast  to  the  realistic  and  satiric  come- 
dies and  the  intense  unrelieved  tragedies  which  immediately  preceded 
these  especial  plays.  Clearly,  then,  so  he  maintains,  this  exact  type  of 
romance  was  a  departure  from  the  prevalent  dramatic  forms,  and,  as 
such,  was  due  cither  to  Shakspere  or  to  Beaumont  and  Fletcher. 
Shakspere,  however,  had  been  busy  with  tragedy  and  made  a  most 
abrupt  change  at  just  this  time  from  that  to  romance,  whereas  Beaumont 
and  Fletcher  appear  to  have  been  from  the  first  identified  with  the  new 
type.^  .The  likelihood  would  therefore  be — especially  in  view  of  the 
extraordinary  popularity  of  Philaster — that  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  had 
been  the  innovators  and  that  Shakspere  had  followed  their  example. 

Thorndike's  study  is  an  interesting  one  and  certainly  masses  a  con- 
siderable array  of  probabilities  to  support  the  claim  that  Shakspere  was 
following  the  lead  of  the  lesser  dramatists.  However,  all  these  proofs 
can  not  establish  indisputably  the  claim  that  Philaster  preceded  Cymhe- 
line;  and  it  cannot  be  established  without  the  discovery  of  further  docu- 
mentary evidence.  Until  that  is  found  it  must  remain  an  open  ques- 
tion wliether  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  or  Shakspere  introduced  this  par- 
ticular form  of  tlic  heroic  romance.' 


'p.  107. 

'^Thr  Wonuui  !lat<r.  hnwover,  which  can  make  no  claims  to  being  a  heroic  romanc* 
was  brought  out  in  1007. 

"M.  W.  SaniDson  In  a  review  of  Thorndike's  study  {Journal  of  Gcnnamc  PhiloJogy 
IV.  1002.  No.  2.  pp.  241-242)  makes  practically  the  same  criticism  as  to  the  validity 
of  Thorndike's  conclualoBS, 


I    UNIVERSITY 

OF 

FLETCHER'S  RELATION  TO  LEADING  FORMS  OF  DRAMA.         33 

However  that  may  be,  this,  at  least,  is  certain,  that,  along  with 
Shakspere,  our  two  dramatists  made  of  the  species  a  permanent  form, 
and  that  Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  even  more  than  Shakspere,  popular- 
ized it  and  established  for  it  the  particular  lines  along  which  it  was  to 
move.  The  type  is,  on  the  whole,  more  characteristic  of  Beaumont  than 
of  Fletcher — at  any  rate,  more  successfully  wrought  out  in  the  plays  in 
which  Beaumont's  collaboration  seems  sure.  At  the  same  time  it  is  to  be 
remarked  that  each  play  of  this  class  in  Group  II  was  popular  on  the 
stage  and  that  the  great  number  of  the  same  nature  in  Group  III  added 
to  these,  made  Fletcher,  certainly  as  regards  the  number  of  his  plays, 
the  chief  representative  in  this  field  of  the  romantic  drama.  If  he 
lacked  some  of  the  subtlety  of  Beaumont,  he  at  least  knew  how  to  hold 
the  stage  here  as  elsewhere,  and  confirmed  the  standards  and  influences 
which  their  earlier  and  joint  productions  had  initiated. 

The  principle  of  classification  which  Thorndike  has  laid  down  and 
which,  for  convenience,  we  follow,  even  be3'ond  his  six  plays,  would  not 
admit  comedies  among  the  heroic  romances,  and  hardly  allows  for 
heavy  tragedy.  For  that  reason  the  discussion  of  the  type  has  been  in- 
cluded under  the  head  of  tragi-comedies,  although  Thorndike  has  in- 
cluded certain  so  called  tragedies  in  his  group.  Of  tragi-comedies,  four 
from  Group  II  would  be  admitted :  The  Loyal  Subject,  The 
Mad  Lover,  The  Island  Princess,  A  Wife  for  a  Month,  and 
perhaps,  through  the  serious  plot  interest,  Monsieur  Thomas,  Women 
Pleased  and  The  Humorous  Lieutenant,  so  that  practically  all  the  tragi- 
comedies would  fall  here. 

(3)  Tragedy.  The  tragedies,  of  which  there  are  two,  Bondvx:a 
and  Valentinian,  would  be  excluded  from  Thorndike's  class  of  romances 
by  their  lack  of  sentimental  interest  and  of  happy  denouements,  althougli 
their  historical  themes  need  constitute  no  real  difficulty  in  placing  them 
there.  This  choice  of  historical  subjects  is  rather  a  mark  of  Fletcher 
than  of  Beaumont,  to  whom  no  play  using  such  a  theme  can  be 
definitely  attributed,  and  so  it  is  Fletcher  who  may  be  thought  of  as 
marking  a  further  step  from  the  chronicle  play  than  even  Shakspere 
had  taken,  because  of  his  recklessness  in  dealing  with  historical  ma- 
terial. Shakspere  had  felt  himself  compelled  to  reproduce  the  ultimate 
and  larger  truths  of  histor}^,  however  he  might  swerve  from  the  narrow 
line  of  facts;  but  Fletcher,  as  a  rule,  felt  no  obligation  to  cither  the 
letter  or  the  spirit  and  dealt  with  history  in  a  fashion  romantic  in  its 
freedom  of  handling,  if  not  in  its  inclusion  of  all  the  so-called  romantic 
features. 


34  BEAUMONT-FLETCHER    PLAYS. 

Thomdike  finds  in  the  Beaumont-Fletcher  plays  little  influence  of 
the  tragedy  of  blood/  to  which  they  are  so  close  in  time.  He  grants  a 
possibility,  however,  of  classifying  Thierry  and  Theoderet  under  that 
head  and  finds  a  touch  of  their  spirit  in  The  Triumph  of  Death.  He  is 
clearly  right  in  asserting  that  neither  Beaumont  nor  Fletcher  had  an 
instinctive  liking  for  sustained  and  exaggerated  scenes  of  horror.  Beau- 
mont, indeed,  had  a  sense  of  restraint  which,  even  in  his  most  powerful 
scenes,  usually  kept  him  within  proper  bounds.  For  Fletcher,  however, 
the  case  was  not  so  clear.  The  Triumph  of  Death  might,  for  its  unre- 
lieyed  intensity,  almost  be  Webster^s,  and  Valentinian,  with  its  accumu- 
lation of  poisonings  and  suicides,  is  in  much  the  same  mood,  even 
though  the  actual  shedding  of  blood  is  not  prominent.  It  is  not  impossi- 
ble indeed  that  this  school  did  influence  Fletcher,  although  his  many 
borrowings  indicate  that  he  was  a  constant  imitator  of  Shakspere,  and^ 
to  a  considerable  extent,  his  disciple.  Moreover,  his  own  nature  was 
too  Bunny  and  pleasure-loving  to  admit  of  any  real  preference  for  the 
highly  wrought  and  abnormal  tendencies  of  Webster  and  his  school.^ 
If  Fletcher  introduced  violently  tragic  scenes  it  was  not  because  his 
soul  was  aroused  to  the  point  of  intensity  which  required  them,  as 
Webster's  was,  but  because  he  was  attentive  to  their  effectiveness  on  the 
stage,  and,  when  once  engaged  upon  them,  lacked  what  Schlegel  calls 
"the  artistic  sagacity"^  to  present  any  part  of  them  by  suggestion  or  by 
other  of  the  subtler  dramatic  processes.  This  may  be  what  Whipple 
means  when  he  declares  of  Fletcher  that  "the  same  volatile  fancy  which 
in  his  comedy  riots  in  fun,  in  his  tragedy  riots  in  blood,''*  but  the  in- 
ference from  this  of  any  real  affinity  for  the  horrible  would  be  a  hard 
view  to  defend. 

(4)  Comedy.  In  comedy  it  is  clear  that  Fletcher  is,  in  his  own 
proper  person,  an  epochal  figure.  The  claim  that  he  was  the  founder  of 
the  comedy  of  manners  can  hardly  be  maintained  when  one  remembers 
the  many  Elizabethan  and  early  Jacobean  plays  that  might  fall  into 
Buch  a  classification.  Neither  can  it  be  proved  that  he  brought  in  the 
romantic  comedy,  for,  besides  earlier  efforts,  Chapman,  Shakspere  and 

^The  Influence  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  on  Bhakspcre,  p.  85. 

*E.  E.  Stoll  In  his  John  Webster  (1905)  indeed  makes  a  strong  counter  claim 
that  Webster  In  his  later  years  was  in  his  comedy  writing  a  thorough  disciple  of 
Fletcher  and  followed  him  as  closely  as  possible  in  the  plot  making,  characterization 
and  atmosphere  of  the  plays.     See  pp.  171-193. 

^Lectures  on  Dramatic  Art  and  Literature^  ed.  1889,  p.  468. 

*Aac  of  Elizaheih,  ed.  1889,  p.  1G7. 


PLETCHEE  'S  EELATION  TO  LEADING  FORMS  OF  DRAMA.  35 

Day  all  produced  plays  more  or  less  of  this  type.^  It  was  ratlier, 
indeed,  by  his  skilful  combination  of  these  two,  the  romantic 
comedy,  and  the  comedy  of  manners,  that  he  gained  his  won- 
derful popularity  and  laid  the  foundations  for  his  influence,  an  influence 
so  great  that  it  becomes  a  question  whether  any  other  writer  of  English 
comedy  has  done  so  much  to  settle  its  standards  and  shape  its  course.  He 
himself  was  clearly  affected  to  some  extent  by  Jonson's  peculiar  type  of 
comedy  and  handed  on  its  influence  to  later  dramatists,  but  he  so  modified 
and  supplemented  this  comedy  of  manners  in  the  processes  of  transmis- 
sion that  it  emerged  from  his  hands  fully  half  made  over.    He  shook  it 

■free  from  the  didactic  and  sententious  and  breathed  into  it  the  infection 
of  his  own  fun-loving  spirit.    He  substituted,  too,  for  the  hard  realism  of 
Jonson's  comedies  a  certain  lightly  adventurous  tone  which   made    all    ^ 
men  soldiers  of  fortune  and  which,  without  in  any  essential  way  destroy- 

t  ing  its  character  as  a  comedy  of  manners,  infused  into  it  by  the  daring 
of  the  plots  and  the  spiciness  of  the  characters,  a  certain  romantic  col- 
oring which  doubled  its  effectiveness  and  charm.  In  some  of  the  plays, 
like  The  Woman  s  Prize,  Rule  a  Wife  and  Have  a  Wife,  and  The  Wild 
Goose  Chase,  it  is  the  spirit  of  the  comedy  of  manners  which  is  most  to 
the  fore,  though  the  romantic  element  is  by  no  means  lacking,  either  in 
the  conception  of  the  characters  or  the  contrivance  of  the  plots.  In 
others  like  The  Pilgrim  and  The  Chances,  it  is  the  romantic  interest  , 
which  receives  the  stronger  emphasis,  and  it  is  to  be  noted  that  Fletcher 
shows  in  these  an  abandon  and  sheer  delight  in  production  that  indicate 
his  thorough  affinity  for  his  task. 

His  lightness  of  touch,  cleverness  of  expression,  readiness  with 
expedients,  variety  of  incidents  and  power  to  throw  a  romantic  at- 
mosphere around  any  number  of  absurdities  of  situation  or  char- 
acter gave  him  the  mastery  in  this  less  serious  domain  of  his 
art,  and  gained  for  him  a  popularity  not  granted  to  Shakspere  or  Jon- 
son,  however  much  they  may  have  surpassed  him  in  comprehension  of 
human  nature  or  weightiness  of  thought.  In  this  way,  while  he  borrowed 
much  from  his  predecessors  and  had  not  an  essentially  original  mind, 

— ...■  -.■—--——■  ■ ■■.■■,.    —  ■■,,,,. — . — ■»■     '  ■■■    ■ 

^Courthope  in  his  History  of  English  Poetry  (1903),  IV,  p.  437,  has  this  to  say 
on  the  subject : 

"Of  English  poetic  comedy  there  are  only  two  kinds  which  have  their  roots  deep 
In  English  character  and  institutions — the  romantic  comedy  of  Shakespeare  and  the 
satiric  comedy  of  Bon  Jonson ;  the  one  springing  out  of  the  ancient  fabliaux,  the 
other  out  of  medieval  moralities.  In  course  of  time  a  third  species  was  formed  by 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  which  combiued  some  of  the  qualities  of  Shakespeare's  styl« 
with  others  peculiar  to  Ben  Jonson,  but  which  was  exotic  in  character,  being  in  many 
essential  respects  an  Imitation  of  the  practice  of  the  Spanish  stage." 


36  BEAUAiONT-FLETCHER    PLAYS. 

he  made  the  especial  types  of  comedy  which  he  adopted  and  liis  char- 
acteristic methods  of  handling  them  the  models  for  many  of  the  comedy 
writers  of  his  day  and  became  the  father  of  a  long  line  of  dramatists 
which  extended  through  the  school  of  Congreve  and  Wycherley^  and  well 
into  the  eighteenth  century.  If  the  merit  of  the  greater  tragedies  and 
tragi-comedies  is  coming  more  and  more  to  be  attributed  to  Beaumont, 
there  is  still  left  for  Fletcher  an  undisputed  right  to  most  of  the  comedies 
on  which  their  joint  fame  rests.  On  these  his  prime  claim  to  pre-emi- 
nence will  depend  when  the  sifting  of  his  w^ork  from  that  of  his  chief 
collaborator  has  been  more  fully  accomplished.  Meanwhile  the  discov- 
ery of  the  nature  and  extent  of  his  influence — as  distinct  from  that  of 
Beaumont — upon  the  comedy  writers  from  his  own  time  until  now  is 
one  of  the  interesting  problems  awaiting  solution. 

^Courthope  considers  that  the  comedy  writers  of  the  Restoration  formed  their 
styles  "from  a  combination  of  the  style  of  Jonson  and  Fletcher,"  end  maintains  that 
they  follow  Jonson  in  all  externals,  such  as  dress,  gesture  and  language,  because  he 
attempted  the  "closest  imitation  of  life,"  whereas  Fletcher  handed  on  to  them  the 
Spanish  method  of  treating  plot  and  action.  (See  A  History  of  English  Poetry,  IV, 
p.  445.)  The  influence  of  Jonson  is,  I  think,  visible  in  most  of  the  writers  of  tlila 
school.  In  certain  phases  in  their  realistic  treatment,  but  I  should  call  it  much  less 
marked  than  that  of  Fletcher,  who  seems  to  me  to  furnish  the  real  model  by  which 
they  work. 


^  ^  -  IV 

CHOICE  AND  TREATMENT  OF  SOURCES. 

Next  after  Shakspere,  Fletcher  is,  perhaps,  of  all  English  dram- 
atists, the  one  whose  sources  best  repay  study  as  affording  insight  into 
his  theory  of  dramatic  writing.  This  results  not  only  from  his  many 
and  varied  borrowings,  but  also  from  the  very  characteristic  way  in  which 
he  chose  and  handled  this  material.  His  method  is  the  more  clearly 
defined,  too,  from  the  fact  that  Beaumont  appears  to  have  usually 
I  invented  his  plots,  while  there  are  few  plays  either  in  Fletcher's  own 
group  or  among  those  of  Group  III  which  have  not  already  been  traced, 
in  part  at  least,  to  extraneous  suggestion.*  Moreover,  the  motives  and 
methods  at  work  in  the  adaptation  of  the  material  used  in  these  two 
later  groups  are  so  nearly  the  same  as  to  warrant  a  strong  probability 
that  Fletcher  chose  and  shaped  most  of  the  plots  of  Group  III.  A  tra- 
dition already  referred  to  prevailed  that  Shirley  assisted  Fletcher  in  the 
plotting  of  several  of  his  plays,  but  while  this  may  have  been  true,  the 
suggestion  of  the  1711  octavo-  that  Shirley  merely  finished  several  plays 
left  incomplete  by  Fletcher  is,  on  the  whole,  more  probable.  It  seems 
clear  that  Shirley  had  a  share  in  some  of  the  late  plays,  but  even  if  we 
grant  his  actual  collaboration  with  Fletcher,  it  is  hardly  plausible  that 
the  older  writer  submitted  his  strong  dramatic  sense  and  more  experi- 
enced judgment  to  the  revisions  of  one  who  was  obviously  his  disciple 
and  imitator.  We  may  then  infer  that  Fletcher's  hand  is  the  guiding 
one  in  both  groups,  although  our  inferences  as  to  his  method  must  be 
based  primarily  on  the  plays  of  Group  II. 

In  following  up  the  subject  of  Fletcher's  sources  one  soon  becomes 

»Mr.  Courthope  is  quite  wide  of  the  mark  in  being  unable  to  recall  any  tragedy 
or  comedy  of  Fletcher's — by  which  I  take  it  that  he  means  any  play,  though  my 
comment  holds  In  any  case — in  which  the  dramatist  has  not  made  the  framework  of 
blB  plot  (See  A  History  of  English  Poetry,  IV,  p.  314.)  If  by  Fletcher's  con- 
trivance of  his  own  plots  it  is  meant  that  he  never  accepts  any  without  altering  and 
gnpplementlng  It,  that  is  of  course  true  and  would  be  found  true  of  almost  any 
dramatist.  There  can  be  no  quostion,  however,  that  he  usually  borrowed  his  main 
plots  as  well  as  the  more  important  episodes  which  he  used  as  supplementary 
material.  The  Chances  and  The  Mad  Lover,  which  are  analyzed  In  this  chapter,  are 
both  instances  of  his  I)orro\ving  of  the  main   plot. 

''See  Preface  Oivinfj  Some  Account  of  the  Authors  and  Their  Writings. 

37 


38  BEAUMONT-FLETCHER    PLAYS. 

convinced  that  he  had  clearly  defined  ideas  of  what  was  worth  borrow- 
ing and  an  ultimately  consistent  method  of  shaping  that  to  the  results 
at  which  he  aimed.  In  every  case  his  touchstone  was  the  same. 
Throuo-h  any  mass  of  environment  he  detected  the  effective  dramatic 
situation,  whether  actual  or  potential,  and  perceived  with  a  remarkable 
'  deoree  of  penetration  how  to  detach  it  from  useless  surroundings  and 
present  it  to  the  greatest  advantage. 

In  his  keen  eye  for  what  would  serve  his  purpose,  as  well  as  in  his 
freedom  and  skill  in  adapting  it,  Fletcher  is  strongly  suggestive  of 
Shakspere,  and  yet  the  two  differed  radically  in  their  approach  to  their 
material.  Shakspere,  at  least  in  his  later  and  greater  work,  looked  to  his 
characters  for  the  strong  interest  of  his  plays  and  was  chiefly  occupied  in 
developing  some  central  figure  or  figures  through  the  medium  of  a  suit- 
able series  of  events.  Thus,  where  a  story  offered  him  large  possibilities 
in  the  way  of  character  treatment,  he  did  not  greatly  concern  himself 
with  its  effectiveness  per  se. 

Fletcher,  however,  came  to  his  choice  of  material  with  his  mind 
fixed  on  the  interest  of  the  plot,  so  that  whether  in  tragedy,  comedy  or 
tragi-comedy,  it  was  always  the  events  which  riveted  his  attention.  For 
him  the  only  successful  plot  was  one  crowded  with  happenings,  while 
the  characters  were  primarily  the  machinery  to  keep  the  plot  in  motion. 
In  tliis  way  it  comes  about  quite  naturally  that  his  plays  do  not  centre 
about  one  great  character  or  passion,  but  are  rather  a  series  of  adven- 
tures marked  by  various  slight  but  effective  climaxes,  which  do  for  the 
reader  repeatedly  what  most  plays  do  only  once,  and  all  converge  into 
the  larger  climax  at  the  end.  These  high  points  of  interest  he  looks  for 
chiefly  in  his  sources  and  often  combines  several  stories  to  get  the  suc- 
cession which  he  requires.  The  result  is  a  framework  full  enough 
already  to  ensure  the  success  of  the  acted  play  but  sufficiently  elastic  to 
admit  of  the  introduction  of  any  further  elements  which  will  harmonize 
with  the  general  tone  of  the  play  and  conduce  to  the  impression  of 
constant  activity. 

(1)  Classical.  Such  a  view  of  dramatic  utilities  as  Fletcher  pos- 
sessed made  it  natural  that  among  all  the  materials  of  which  he  made 
use  the  Spanish  attracted  him  most  and  the  classical  least.  "With  the 
latter,  indeed,  it  is  clear  that  he  had  and  could  have  had  little  affinity. 
One  feels  that  Beaumont,  of  the  two,  must  have  been  much 
closer  to  the  classical  taste  and  temper  and  it  is  not  surprising  that 
in  at  least  two  of  his  plays  where  the  plots  are  borrowed  the  indebted- 
ness is  partly  to  clas.-i.ic  material.    Fletcher's  only  notable  venture  here,  in 


CHOICE    AND    TEEATMEXT   OF  SOUKCES.  39 

the  plays  of  Group  II,  however,  is  in  The  Triumph  of  Time,  drawn  from 
Lucian's  dialogue  of  Timon,  and  he  is  clearly  restricted  in  the  handling 
of  his  material,  and,  for  once,  unable  to  make  the  most  of  its  dramatic 
possibilities.  The  aggravated  didacticism  of  the  motive,  as  well  as  the  re- 
straint of  the  classical  simplicity,  were  obviously  too  much  for  his  undis- 
ciplined volatility,  so  that  the  result  is  a  combination  of  morality  and 
masque,  which,  aside  from  certain  scenic  effectiveness,  has  little  to  rec- 
ommend it  and  is  distinctly  inferior  to  the  dialogue  on  which  it  is  based. 
(2)  Historical.  Nor  was  the  historical  spirit  much  less  remote 
from  Fletcher's  than  the  classical.  As  already  suggested'  in  noting  his 
relation  to  tl;ie  development  of  the  historical  play,  he  drew  upon  history 
merely  as  a  part  of  the  resources  of  his  general  dramatic  fund  and  made 
no  distinction  between  authentic  and  extraneous  material. 

.  Bonduca  furnishes  an  excellent  example  of  his  method  of  plot 
building  in  plays  of  this  class.  In  Bonduca  Fletcher  has  combined  his- 
torical data  taken  apparently  through  Holinshed-  from  Tacitus^  and 
Dion  Cassius*  with  suggestions  from  the  play  of  The  Valiani 
Welshman^  and  possibly  from  Shakspere's  Antony  and  Cleopatra;  and 
then  has  fully  doubled  the  amount  of  material  thus  acquired,  by  the 
introduction  of  unliistorical  incidents  and  interests.  In  somewhat 
Shaksperian  fashion  he  has  brought  together  the  striking  figures  of 
Caratach  and  Bonduca — separated  in  histor}" — and  having  chosen  the 
battle  as  the  dramatic  centre  of  the  play,  has  built  his  characters  and 
minor  situations  about  it.  From  the  historic  struggle  in  which  Carac- 
taeus  was  captured  by  the  Eomans  and  the  two  later  ones  in  which 
Bonduca  engaged  v/ith  the  same  enemy,  he  has  selected  such  features  as 
will  combine  into  an  effective  whole,  and  to  this  end  has  represented 
both  Caratach  and  Bonduca  as  taking  part  in  the  battle,  although  the 
former  is  the  actual  commander  of  the  day.  From  the  mere  mention 
of  the  daughters  of  Bonduca  as  dishonored  by  the  Romans  and  as  ap- 
pearing in  battle  with  their  mother,  he  develops  a  succession  of  stir- 
ring situations  in  which  the* daughters  not  only  serve  as  an  effective 
background  for  their  mother's  martial  figure,  but  become  invested  through 
their  own  tremendous  pluck  and  patriotism  with  a  strong  interest  of  tlieir 
own.     Thus  in  the  temple  scene  they  are  shown  only  as  a  part  of  the 

^See  p.  .33. 

^Chronicles  of  England,  Scotland  and  Ireland.  Raphael  Holinshed  (158G).  ed. 
1807.   I,  489-490.   496-501. 

'^Annales,  XII,  33-37,  XIV,  29  ff. 

■•Dion  Cassius,  LXII,  1-12. 

'^The  Valiant  Welshtnan.  Written  hy  R.  A.  gent,  London,  1615.  Reprint,  Erlan- 
gen,  1902.     Muenschencr  hcitragc,  v.  23. 


40  BEAUMONT-FLETCHEK    PLAYS. 

picturesque  setting,  but  in  the  one  where  they  capture  their  Roman  lovers 
and  bring  them  into  the  camp  to  die  they  enter  closely  into  the  action 
of  the  plot.  The  great  scene  for  them,  however,  as  for  Bonduca,  ifc 
elaborated  from  the  hint  of  the  historian  that  Bonduca  may  have  died 
by  poison.  In  this  scene  the  younger  daughter  pleads  to  live  longer, 
while  the  older  one  shows  all  her  mother's  dauntlessness  in  her  welcome 
of  death. 

The  episode  of  Poenius  grows  out  of  the  mention  in  the 
chronicles  of  a  general,  Pennius,  who,  repenting  his  disobedience  to 
liis  commander,  took  his  owti  life.  With  that  as  a  basis  Fletcher  has 
developed  the  scenes  of  Poenius's  proud  resistance  to  the  orders  of  his 
commanders,  his  eager  watching  of  the  battle  from  a  distance,  his  suf- 
fering and  shame  in  consequence  of  his  disobedience,  his  final  escape 
from  his  self-reproaches  by  suicide,  and  the  elaborate  funeral  honors 
paid  him  throughout  the  camp. 

The  childish  figure  of  Hengo  is,  according  to  Lconhardt,*  taken 
from  that  of  Prince  Bald  of  The  Valiant  Welshman^  although  the  dif- 
ferences between  the  two  seem  to  me  so  great  as  to  make  the  borrowing 
hardly  more  than  the  acceptance  of  a  suggestion.  The  series  of  scenes, 
however, in  which  Hengo  appears  is  attractive  from  first  to  last  and  shows 
a  genuine  pathos  which  Fletcher  has  nowhere  else  equalled.  Moreover, 
the  presence  of  a  child  in  the  camp  gives  a  relieving  touch  that  is  dis- 
tinctly artistic,  while  his  incipient  kingliness  and  heroism  keep  him  from 
a]:)pearing  at  any  time  out  of  place  or  an  encumbrance.^ 

The  loves  of  Junius  and  Petillius  for  the  fiery  daughters  of 
Bonduca  serve  the  double  purpose  of  multiplying  the  complications  of 
the  plot  and  affording  touches  of  the  comic.  The  scene  has  already  been 
alluded  to  in  which  their  lovers  are  betrayed  by  the  patriotic  maidens 
into  capture  and  are  saved  from  death  only  by  the  generosity  of  Cara- 
tach.  The  neglect  of  duty  into  which  each  is  led  by  his  passion  and  the 
resulting  repentance  and  mortification  furnish  material  for  various 
episodes  of  serio-comic  mood,  which,  however,  are  not  always  success- 
ful, since  the  situations  involved  are  at  times  too  grave,  or  even  too 
ghastlv,  for  jesting. 

The  other  comedy  element,  introduced  by  Fletcher  into  the  play, 
comes  with  the  figures  of  Judas  and  his  hungry  companions,  but  the 


^Bonduca.     Emj.  Stud.      (1889),   XIII.  p.  58. 

''Mr.  E.  E.  Stoll  In  his  John  Wrbxter  (p.  140)  takes  quite  the  opposite  view  of 
Henpo  find  calls  liim  not  only  uncliildlike  but  "a  quaverinj;  milksop."'  nie  first  objec- 
tion seeniR  to  me  to  bave  some  force,  but  T  find  no  ground  for  llie  second.  Roth  views 
on  this  question,  however,  are  of  course  matters  of  personal  Impression. 


CHOICE    AND    TEEATMENT   OF   SOUECES.  41 

effect  of  this  group  is  even  less  satisfying  than  that  of  the  previous 
one,  since,  Fletcher  here,  for  once,  puts  into  his  soldiers  a  coarseness  of 
nature  and  a  vein  of  brutality  that  jar  upon  the  tone  of  the  play.  The 
scene,  however,  where  they  are  brought  before  Caratach  with  halters  on 
their  necks,  their  voracious  acceptance  of  his  hospitality  and  Judas's 
immediate  threats  upon  his  life,  would  doubtless  have  points  of  attrac- 
tion for  the  pit,  as  would  also  the  last  scene  in  the  play  in  which  Judas 
lays  his  snares  for  Hengo  and  Caratach  and  brings  about  the  death  of 
one  and  the  capture  of  the  other. 

Certainly  Fletcher,  by  the  skill  with  which  he  has  shifted,  devel- 
oped, combined  and  supplemented  his  material,  has  produced  a  play 
that  is  full  of  highly  interesting  and  impressive  situations.  It  is  true 
also  that  many  of  the  liberties  which  he  takes  with  his  data  are  war- 
ranted by  the  privileges  of  the  historical  drama.  At  the  same  time 
the  inevitable  impression  made  by  such  a  treatment  of  history  is  that 
the  dramatist  felt  no  concern  to  show  us  a  real  past,  but  only  to  con- 
struct an  effective  play.  Jusserand,^  indeed,  is  not  far  wrong  in  calling 
it  a  "tragi-comedie  fantaisiste,"  although  it  has  always  been  ranked 
as  a  tragedy  and  doubtless  was  intended  as  such  by  its  author. 

In  Valentinian  a  similar  purpose  is  apparent,  although  the  his- 
torical outline,  as  Fletcher  obtained  it  from  Procopius,-  is  much  more 
closely  adhered  to  than  the  chronicles  are  in  Bonduca.  Symonds^ 
declares  that  Fletcher  inverted  the  order  of  incidents  by  mak- 
ing Maximus's  revenge  the  chief  motive  of  the  play  and  that  the  supple- 
menting of  that  motive  by  a  second  one  of  revenge  is  an  addition  of 
Fletcher's  own.  Both  of  these  motives,  however,  are  implied  in  the  nar- 
rative of  Procopius,  and  it  is  rather  in  the  insertion  of  numerous  details 
and  the  general  heightening  of  the  dramatic  value  of  the  original  than  in 
any  flagrant  distortion  of  facts  that  the  historical  atmosphere  and  spirit 
are  lost. 

(3)  Italian.  When  we  come  to  the  Italian  and  Spanish  sources 
we  are  in  the  midst  of  Fletcher's  real  base  of  supplies.  The  question 
of  his  acquaintance  with  both  or  either  of  these  languages  is  one  so 
vexed  and  intricate  that  the  writer  does  not  feel  justified  in  hazarding 
even  a  conjecture  in  tlie  connection ;  for,  although  the  investigation  into 
the  sources  of  Fletclier's  plavs  has  been  a  considerable  part  of  the  labor 
involved  in  this  study,   it  has  concerned   its^elf   more  with   the  larger 


'^Tlistoire  Htiernire  du  pcuple  anfjlais.   IT.  p.  810. 

-Procopii   Cacsaricnsis   Hisforinniin.      Totrados   I,    Libor.    III. 

In  Corpus  Scriptorum  Historiae  liyzantina<:,   Part  II  Procopius.     Bonnae,   1838. 

^S'owe  J^'otcs   on   Fletcher's    \'alcn1inian.      Fortnightly    Review,   XLVI,    pp.    384-345. 


42  BEAUMONT-FLETCHER    PLAYS. 

features  of  Fletcher^s  dramatic  handling  of  his  material  than  with  the 
close  scrutiny  of  verbal  details  which  is  indispensable  to  a  safe  judgment 
on  this  point.  The  wide  acquaintance  with  both  languages  among  gen- 
tlemen of  that  day,  and  especially  the  evident  breadth  of  Fletcher's  own 
culture,  make  the  inference  that  he  knew  both  languages  a  natural  one. 
Moreover,  the  preponderance  of  Italian  and  Spanish  settings  for  the 
plays,  and  especially  in  the  Spanish,  the  intimate  and  extensive  ac- 
quaintance with  the  literature  of  the  country,  as  well  as  the  intermixture 
of  borrowed  words  and  phrases,  point,  though  inconclusively,'  in  the 
same  direction.  Mr.  Eosenbach,^  however,  who  has  made  a  care- 
ful study  of  the  sources  of  the  Beaumont-Fletcher  plays,  is  of  the  opin- 
ion that  while  Fletcher  probably  kqj^w  Italian,  and  undoubtedly  knew 
French,  he  did  not  know  the  Spanish.  He  points  out  that 
available  English  or  French  translations  of  all  the  Spanish  material 
used  in  the  so-called  Beaumont-Fletcher  plays  have  aready  been  discov- 
ered, except  in  the  case  of  the  plays,  Love's  Cure  and  The  Island 
Princess,  The  former  of  these  he  thinks  was  not  by  either  of  the  dram- 
atists, but  by  Massinger.  In  the  case  of  The  Island  Princess,  while  he 
has  thus  far  found  no  version  of  the  source  except  the  original  La  Con- 
quista  de  Las  Maluccas,  he  thinks  it  easily  possible  that  a  translation 
of  this  may  have  circulated  in  manuscript  in  Fletcher's  day,  as  fre- 
quently happened  with  other  similar  accounts — ^this  being  a  time  of  in- 
tense interest  in  "Voyages"  and  "Eolations,"  and  nearly  all  the  noted 
Spanish  accounts  of  this  sort  being  known  to  have  been  translated. 
Moreover,  as  mentioned  before,^  Mr.  Eosenbach  is  inclined  to  attribute 
to  Massinger  a  part  in  The  Island  Princess,  and  so  would  be  at  no  loss 
to  accept  the  theory  that  the  Spanish  original  was  used  for  the  play, 
because  all  the  indications  point,  as  he  thinks,  to  Massinger's  knowledge 
of  Spanish,  and  the  transference  of  the  material  into  English  might 
easily  have  been  made  by  him  instead  of  Fletcher.^ 

The  argument  from  the  introduction  of  Spanish  words  and  phrases 
into  the  play  Mr.  Eosenbach  disposes  of  by  a  conclusion — based  on  care- 
ful study  of  all  Spanish  words  employed  in  the  plays — that  in  almost 
every  instance  the  words  are  familiar  enough  to  have  been  easily  picked 


»Mr.  Rosenbach  has  kindly  placed  in  my  hands  the  paper  on  The  Spanuih  Source* 
of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  alrcndy  mentioned  on  p.  24  of  this  study,  and  my  state- 
ments as  to  his  views  are  based   upon  that. 

2p.  24  and  just  above. 

3Mr.  Kosenbach  considers  the  Spanish  influence  upon  Beaumont  to  hare  been 
slight  if  any  and  thinks  it  may  have  come  to  him  indirectly  through  Fletcher,  though 
It  la  hard  to  agree  with  this  entirely  when  one  remembers  the  strong  influence  of  the 
spirit  of  the  Don  Quixote  on  The  Kniffht  of  the  nurninu  Vesttc  and  the  evidently  domi- 
nating hand  which   Meaumont  had  in  the  latter  play. 


1 


CHOICE     AND    TREATMENT  OF  SOURCES.  43 

up.  Moreover,  there  is  in  Bule  a  Wife  and  Have  a  ^Vife^  an  instance  of 
Spanish  so  incorrect  as  to  be  hardly  recognizable,  although  the  expres- 
sion is  a  familiar  one.  This  he  takes  as  an  illustration  of  Fletcher's  lack 
of  any  real  knowledge  of  the  language. 

To  return,  however,  to  our  inquiry  into  the  Italian  sources  which 
became  our  point  of  departure  into  the  question  of  Fletcher's  knowledge 
of  the  Italian  and  Spanish  languages,  there  are  of  the  entire  group  of 
Beaumont-Fletcher  plays  twelve^  which  have  already  been  traced,  in  part 
at  least,  to  Italian  sources.  Two^  borrow  the  entire  plot,  except  for 
minor  alterations ;  one,*  its  general  plan ;  three,^  the  main  plots ;  three,® 
parts  of  the  main,  and,  three,'''  parts  of  the  sub-plot. 

Of  the  authors  drawn  from — either  directly  or  through  Belief orest 
on  Paynter — Bandello  is,  so  far  as  is  known,  considerably  in  the  lead, 
since  he  furnishes  material  for  seven^  of  the  plays.  Boccaccio  comes  next, 
contributing  to  four,^  while  Cinthio,^^  Ariosto,^^  Tasso,^^  and  Guarini^^ 
have  each  apparently  been  borrowed  from  only  in  one  play.  As  a  rule, 
Fletcher  draws  upon  Bandello  for  the  more  serious  interest  of  the  main 
story  and  upon  Boccaccio  for  the  episodes  of  the  comic  sub-plot. 

On  the  whole,  however,  in  spite  of  Boccaccio's  contributions  to 
Fletcher's  store  of  comic  plots,  it  was  chiefly  the  stronger  dramatic  pos- 
sibilities of  the  Italian  material  which  constituted  their  attraction  for 
Fletcher.  The  novelle — aside  from  those  of  Boccaccio  and  Sachetti — 
rarely  possessed  much  of  the  comic  interest  so  marked  in  the  French  and 
Spanish  literatures  of  the  corresponding  period.  Their  settings,  how- 
ever, were  easily  adaptable  to  the  romantic  coloring  at  which  Fletcher 
aimed,  while  the  intense  passions  which  they  portrayed  fascinated  the 
theatric  side  of  his  imagination  and  made  them  as  ready  a  resource  for 
him  in  his  tragi-comedies  as  the  historical  material  was  for  his  tragedies. 
There  is,  to  be  sure,  only  one  play  in  this  whole  group  where  the  Italian 


^The  reading  has  been  somewhat  amended  by  later  writers. 

^The  Faithful  Shepherdess,  The  Triumph  of  Love,  The  Triumph  of  Death,  Moivsieur 
Thomas,  The  Loyal  Subject,  The  Mad  Lover,  Woman  Plea,sed,  The  Night  Walker,  The 
Knight  of  Malta,  The  Maid  in  the  Mill,  The  Sea  Voyage,  The  Laws  of  Candy. 

^The  Triumph  of  Love,  The  Triumph  of  Death. 

*The  Faithful  Shepherdess. 

^Monsieur  Thomas,  The  Loyal  Subject,  The  Maid  in  the  Mill. 

^The  Knight  of  Malta,  The  Sea  Voyage,  The  Laws  of  Candy. 

''Monsieur  Thomas,  Women  Pleased,  The  Mad  Lover. 

^The  Triumph  of  Love,  The  Loyal  Subject,  Monsieur  Thomas,  The  Mad  Lover, 
The  Maid  in  the  Mill,  The  Night  Walker,  The  Knight  of  Malta. 

^Monsieur  Thomas,    Women  Pleased,   The  Knight   of  Malta,  The   Triumph  of  Love. 

^'^The  Laics  of  Candy. 

^^The  Sea  Voyage. 

^The  Faithful  Shepherdess. 

^"The  Faithful  Shepherdess. 


44  BEAUMONT-FLETCHER    PLAYS. 

love  of  the  lurid  has  full  sweep — The  Triumph  of  Death.  Usually 
Fletchers  light-hearted  optimism  caught  the  potential  horrors  of  the 
story  hefore  they  were  fully  developed  and  guided  them  into  a  blissful 
termination,  but  he  loved  to  bring  his  characters  to  the  utmost  verge 
of  the  terrible  and  then,  by  a  whisk  of  fortune,  to  drop  them  safe  into 
happiness. 

The  novelle  were  especially  rich  in  situations  that  could  be  fitted 
to  this  treatment.  Their  vividness,  picturesqueness  and  startling  effects 
gratified  Fletcher's  dramatic  sense,  while  he  instinctively  tempered  their 
over-tragic  bent.  This  tempering  he  usually  brought  about  through  some 
form  of  comic  or  romantic  relief.  Thus  in  The  Loyal  Subject  the  some- 
what painful  history  of  Archas  is  offset  by  the  love  story  of  young 
Archas  and  Olympia  and  by  the  comic  complications  of  the  disguise 
which  the  lover  had  assumed  in  order  to  be  near  his  lady.  In  a  similar 
fashion  the  serious  interest  in  Monsieur  Thomas  is  relieved  by  both 
comic  and  romantic  incident,  although  here  it  is  the  comic  sub-plot' 
which  is  added  to  contrast  with  the  serious  one,  while  the  chief  romantic 
interest  is  bound  up  in  the  main  plot  and  borrowed  from  the  source. 

In  still  other  respects  than  that  of  abating  its  natural  gloominess  of 
temper,  Fletcher  found  it  necessary  to  modify  his  Italian  material.  As 
a  rule  the  plots  of  the  novelle  were  thin,  including  few  characters  and 
interests  and  entirely  devoid  of  that  bustle  and  variety  which  consti- 
tuted for  him  the  prime  desideratum  in  a  finished  play.  Their  plots 
rarely  branched  out  widely,  but  followed  simple  linos,  and  usually  cen- 
tred about  some  great  passion  and  its  results.  To  shift  tliis  centre 
from  passion  to  plot,  and  multiply  interests  through  new  characters, 
incidents  and  surprises,  was  constantly  Fletcher's  aim  in  handling  his 
Italian  material,  as  indeed  it  was  to  a  lesser  extent  in  any  otlier  case  of 
his  plot  building. 

The  Mad  Lover  may  be  taken  as,  in  most  respects,  typical  of  Fletcher's 
handling  of  Italian  material.  The  story  which  forms  the  basis  of  the 
plot  comes  down  from  Josephus,  through  Bandello  and  Paynter,  but  was 
seen  by  Fletcher  in  one  or  hotli  of  its  later  forms.  It  concerns  tlie 
love  of  a  TJoman  youth,  Mundus,  who,  becoming  enamoured  of  a  chaste 
and  beautiful  matron,  Paulina,  and  finding  his  love  unavailing,  is 
brought  to  great  grief  and  finally  led  by  the  help  of  a  loyal  slave  to  the 
accomplishment  of  his  desire.  The  slave,  alarmed  at  his  master's  die- 
tress,  repairs  to  tlie  temple  of  Isis  and  engages  a  priest  to  persuade  the 


•The  fact  that  the  play  is  named  for  a  character  In  the  comic  plot  does  not,  ai 
It  seems  to  me,  prevent  the  selection  of  the  serious  Interest  for  the  main  plot. 


I 


CHOICE   AND    TREATMENT    OF   SOURCES.  45 

virtuous  Paulina  that  a  god  has  summoned  her  to  meet  him  at  the  temple 
and  that  it  will  be  sacrilege  to  disregard  the  summons.  The  priest  pre- 
sents the  claim  so  convincingly  that  both  Paulina  and  her  husband  feel 
it  her  duty  to  go,  and  so,  at  the  appointed  time,  she  goes  to  the  temple, 
is  shrewdly  robbed  of  her  honor  by  Mundus  and  returns  home  without  dis- 
covering the  fraud  which  has  been  practiced  upon  her.  Mundus,  how- 
ever, cannot  resist  boasting  to  her  of  his  triumph  and  the  thought  of 
the  wrong  done  to  her  so  arouses  her  that  she  begs  the  Emperor  him- 
self for  redress  and  brings  it  about  that  the  slave  and  the  priest  are 
crucified,  the  temple  is  destroyed,  the  statue  of  Isis  thrown  into  the 
river,  and  the  lover — because  for  pity  of  his  love,  Tiberius  softens  his  sen- 
tence— is  sent  into  perpetual  banishment. 

On  such  a  simple  and  gloomy  tale  as  this  Fletcher  has  constructed 
a  play  crowded  with  incident,  and  one  which,  while,  by  his  own  defini- 
tion^ ranking  as  tragi-comedy,  has  in  it,  from  the  first,  much  of  the 
mood  and  movement  of  the  romantic  comedy.  The  scene  has  been 
shifted  from  Rome  to  the  island  of  Paphos,  so  that  a  setting  even  more 
interestingly  remote  than  the  original,  may  be  gained,  while  the  stately 
Roman  matron  Paulina  is  changed  into  a  Paphian  princess,  Calis,  whose 
rank  combines  with  her  youthful  beauty  to  bring  her  a  succession  of 
suitors  and  make  her  the  centre  of  a  variety  of  interesting  events.  The 
hero  of  the  story  is  retained  but  thrust  into  a  position  of  less  promi- 
nence, while  another  suitor  is  brought  forward  who  offers  far  greater 
possibilities  for  effective  presentation — a  general  who,  though  invincible 
on  the  battlefield,  is  a  stranger  to  all  the  social  graces  and  absurdly 
clumsy  in  the  arts  of  love.  This  general,  ^lenmon,  returning  from  wa,r 
after  a  succession  of  victories,  is  seized  with  a  violent  love  of  Calis  at 
first  sight  of  her,  quickly  becoming  mad  over  her  indifference  and  threat- 
ening suicide.  Even  in  the  most  distressing  situations,  so  far  as  the 
participants  themselves  are  concerned,  however,  the  dramatist  makes  it 
clear  that  the  terrible  is  to  be  averted  and  that  his  own  attitude  is  that 
of  distinct  amusement.  Thus  not  only  ^lemnon's  awkwardness  in  woo- 
ing, but  his  appalling  proofs  of  his  affection  and  the  utmost  phrenzy  of 
his  despair  are  given  with  a  touch  so  undeniably  comic  that  our  thought 
is  diverted  from  any  anxiety.  Mundus,  the  Roman  youth,  now  appears 
as  Syphax,  brother  of  one  of  Calis's  attendants  and  a  soldier  in  Mem- 
non's  ,a.rmy.  Being  greatly  distressed  over  his  general's  sad  state,  he 
goes  to  the  princess  to  beg  her  compassion,  but  no  sooner  sees  her  than 
he  himself  is  smitten  with  an  equal  passion  and  sets  about  winning  her 
for  himself,  impossible   as  his   own   obscure  rank  makes  an  open  and 

iThis  study,  p.  29. 


4f$  BEAUMONT-FLETCHER    PLAYS. 

honorable  attachment  on  his  part.  Two  lines  of  activity  are  thus  set  in 
motion,  but  Fletcher  soon  introduces  a  third  complicating  force  in  the 
person  of  Mcmnon's  brother,  Polydore,  who,  full  of  grief  at  his  brother's 
distraught  condition,  has  set  diligently  about  bringing  Calis  to  pity. 
When  he  comes  before  Calis,  however,  he  arouses  at  once  in  her  a  passion 
as  ardent  towards  himself  as  his  brother's  is  towards  her,  and  from  that 
time  on  she  pursues  him  with  her  addresses  in  spite  of  all  the  repulses 
which  brotherly  loyalty  dictate.  These  three  passions,  Mcmnon's, 
Calis's  and  that  of  Syphax,  being  set  at  work,  the  play  is  at  no  loss  for 
incident  or  interest.  Polydore  and  Calis  continue  to  act  at  cross  pur- 
poses, and  the  secret  plot  of  Syphax  and  his  sister  Cleanthe  takes  up  the 
line  of  the  Italian  story,  though  with  many  changes  of  detail.  Syphax, 
like  Mundus,  hopes  to  wan  the  lady  of  his  choice  by  priestly  connivance 
at  a  trick  to  decoy  her  to  the  temple  and  by  the  aid  of  his  sister  seems 
to  have  shaped  events  to  the  complete  accomplishment  of  his  desires. 
Here  Fletcher  turns  directly  from  his  Italian  material,  however,  and 
instead  of  following  its  heavy  tragedy  lines  micets  trick  with  trick  and 
turns  the  denouement  into  a  comedy  which  is  not  far  from  being  farcical. 
This  turn  he  accomplishes  through  the  ingenuity  of  an  entirely  new  char- 
acter, Chilax,  a  clever  old  rogue  with  some  loyalty  to  the  princess,  a 
good  deal  of  common  sense  and  a  very  strong  sense  of  humor.  Chilax 
learns  from  the  priestess  on  whom  Syphax  and  his  sister  depend,  all  the 
details  of  the  evil  plot  and,  determining  that  the  trick  shall  return  en- 
tirely upon  Syphax's  own  head,  brings  to  the  temple  the  youth's  deserted 
mistress,  Cloe,  and  places  her  before  him,  so  bedecked  in  bridal  finery 
tliat  Syphax  at  once  takes  her  to  be  the  promised  Calis,  is  married  to  her 
without  delay  and  sets  out  with  her  to  beg  the  king's  forgiveness  for  the 
presumption  of  so  daring  an  alliance.  The  truth  comes  to  light,  a  laugh 
goes  round  and  Syphax  is  left  to  enjoy  his  jest  as  best  he  may.  Mean- 
while the  constant  efforts  of  his  friends  and  the  unchanged  loyalty  of 
his  brother  are  bringing  Memnon  back  to  reason  and  leading  him  to  the 
conviction  that  he  is  made  for  war  and  not  for  love.  Thus,  although 
Calis,  moved  by  the  generosity  of  both  brothers,  finally  offers  to  be  tlie 
wife  of  either,  Mem'hon  cheerfully  renounces  her  to  Polydore  and  deter- 
mines to  win  new  honors  in  war.     So  tlie  play  ends. 

It  should  be  noted,  too,  that  in  the  amplification  of  his  Italian 
plots  Fletcher  has  constant  recourse  to  dramatic  devices  and  conventions, 
some  more  or  less  inherent  by  suggestion,  in  the  main  plot  itself,  though 
undeveloped;  some  borrowed  from  other  Italian  stories  than  those  on 
which  the  main  plot  is  based;  some  his  own;  and  still  others  drawn  from 


CHOICE    AND    TREATMENT    OF  SOUECES.  47 

the  current  Elizabethan  supply,  either  through  the  medium  of  some 
earlier  play  or  from  a  common  stock  where  sources  were  indiscriminately 
mingled.  He  used  conventions  freely,  of  course,  as  we  shall  see  later, 
in  all  of  his  plays;  but  he  recognized  the  especial  need  for  them  in  the 
handling  of  material  in  itself  so  lacking  in  elaboration  and  detail  as  the 
Italian  was. 

In  general  it  may  be  said  that  Fletcher's  way  of  treating  his  Italian 
material  was  to  seize  upon  one  or  more  stories  as  affording  striking  situ- 
ations for  the  serious  parts  of  his  plays;  to  give  the  plot  greater  breadth 
and  interest  by  the  addition  of  new  characters  and  consequent  new  mo- 
tives and  activities;  to  relieve  the  over-strenuous  Italian  tone  by  a  con- 
trasting one  which  was  humorous  or  sentimental,  or  both;  to  use  as 
many  of  the  popular  conventions  as  would  fit  into  the  structure  of  the 
play;  and  finally  to  envelope  the  whole  in  a  romantic  atmosphere  which 
should  soften  the  realism  and,  at  the  same  time,  prepare  the  audience, 
by  a  suggestion  of  remoteness  from  ordinary  life,  for  whatever  happened, 
however  marvelous  it  might  be. 

(4)  Spanish.  If  the  serious  character  of  the  Italian  stories  proved 
their  chief  attraction  to  Fletcher,  it  is  no  less  noticeable  that  he  turned 
to  the  Spanish  for  the  more  lightly  adventurous  or  humorous  element 
of  his  plays. 

The  extent  of  the  indebtedness  of  the  Beaumont-Fletcher  plays,^  as 
a  group,  to  the  Spanish  is  proved  by  the  fact  that  of  the  thirty-four 
plays  whose  sources  are  already  known,  either  entirely  or  in  part,  seven- 
teen^ draw  upon  Spanish  material.  Moreover,  since,  at  most,  only  three 
of  that  number,  Philaster,  The  Knight  of  the  Burning  Pestle,  and,  ac- 
cording to  Rosenbach,  The  Little  French  Lawyer,  can  be  attributed  to 
Beaumont  as  well  as  Fletcher,  the  inferences  are  in  favor  of  Fletcher's 
having  had  the  determining  choice.  Of  the  entire  group,  four  belong 
to  Group  II,  and  so  claim  closer  consideration  than  the  rest. 

One  recognizes  at  once  Fletcher^s  greater  aiUnity  for  the  Spanish 
material  than  for  the  Italian,  not  only  in  his  larger  use  of  it,  but  in  the 

'The  plays  in  which  Spanish  origin  is  doubtful  are  The  Coxcomb,  The  Queen 
of  Corinth  and  A  Wife  for  a  Month.  The  assignment  adopted  here  is  based  chiefly  on 
Rosenbach's  conclusions,  inasmuch  as  he  has  reviewed  the  work  of  previous  students 
In  this  field  and  has  then  added  the  results  of  his  own.  He  mentions  twenty  plays 
as  possibly  influenced  by  the  Spanish,  but  indicates  three  as  doubtful,  thus  reducing 
his  more  careful  estimate  to  seventeen. 

^Philastcrj  The  Knight  of  the  Burning  Pestle,  The  Little  French  Latcyoi;  The 
Custom  of  the  Country,  The  Double  Marriage,  Women  Pleased,  The  Chances,  The 
Island  Princess,  The  Pilgrim,  The  Prophetess,  The  Spanish  Curate,  The  Maid  in 
the  Mill,  Rule  a  Wife  and  Have  a  Wife,  The  Fair  Maid  at  the  Inn,  Love's  Pilgrimage, 
and  Love's  Cure,  which  Rosenbach  thinks  not   Fletcher's  at  all. 


48  BEAUMONT-FLETCHEE    PLAYS. 

ease  with  which  he  adapted  what  was  taken  over.  It  was  closer  in  every 
way  to  his  temperamental  and  artistic  bent  and  to  just  the  extent  that 
his  genius  was  nearer  to  comedy  than  to  tragedy.  It  was  less  intense 
than  the  Italian,  fuller  of  pleasing  adventure  and  more  genuinely  ro- 
mantic, happier  and  more  buoyant  in  tone,  and  pervaded  with  a  light- 
hearted  and  irresponsible  spirit  that  was  well  in  keeping  with  Fletcher's 
characteristic  mood. 

Of  the  authors  drawn  from,  Cervantes  is  much  the  most  used,  ten^ 
of  the  plays  being  apparently  indebted  to  him,  though  there  is  some 
doubt  as  to  two,  while  two-  are  from  Cespedes  y  Meneses,  and  one  each  1 
from  Lope  de  Yega,^  Mateo  Aleman,*  Leon  de  Argensola,^  Guillen  de 
Castro^  and  Lope  de  Eueda,^  or,  rather,  from  a  source  based  on  his 
"Los  Euganos.'^  The  study  of  Fletchers  adaptation  of  material  con- 
vinces me  that  of  all  those  from  whom  he  drew,  Cervantes  gave  him 
what  was  best  suited  to  his  purposes.  Indeed,  if  Fletcher  had  busied  him- 
self with  writing  stories  instead  of  plays  it  seems  probable  that  they 
would  not  have  differed  greatly  from  the  Novelas  Exemplares.  It  is  true 
that  Cervantes,  especially  when  he  shows  himself  at  his  best,  as  in  Don 
Quixote,  is  vastly  superior  to  Fletcher  in  his  keen  insight  into  human 
nature  and  his  power  to  present  it  convincingly.  Moreover,  Cervantes's 
nature,  although  perhaps  as  cheerful  as  Fletcher's,  had  been  tempered  by 
experience  to  a  realization  of  the  seriousness  of  life  such  as  Fletcher 
never  acquired,  and  so  the  Spaniard  carried  under  his  gaiety  of  tone  not  f 
only  a  more  genuine  sentiment,  but  a  quietly  sardonic  quality  which 
showed  that  he  perceived  the  graver  ironies,  although  he  still  remained 
genial,  stimulating,  and  delightful.  All  these  deeper  qualities,  however, 
Cervantes  showed  far  less  in  his  short  stories  than  in  the  work  by  which 
he  is  best  known.  Moreover,  his  chief  attraction  for  Fletcher  is  not  so 
much  in  his  outlook  upon  life  as  in  the  sprightliness  of  his  invention  and 
his  method  of  presentation.  The  adventurous  element  of  Cervantes's  lit- 
erary conceptions,  their  cleverness  and  variety  of  incident,  their  fulness  of 

^The  Chances,  The  Knight  of  the  Burning  Pestle,  The  Coxcomh  (?)^  The  Cu-sto-m 
of  the  Country,  The  Queen  of  Corinth  (?),  The  Double  Marriage,  The  Prophetess,  The 
Fair  Maid  of  the  Inn,  Love's  Pilgrimage,  and  Rule  a  Wife  and  Have  a  Wife. 

*The  Mnid  in  the  Mill  (sub-plot),  The  Spanish  Curate. 

'The  Pilgrim. 

*The  Little  French  Laicyej'. 

''The  Island,  Princess. 

^Love's  Cure. 

ThiUtfitrr.  IJosonhiuli  iiulicatos  somo  doiihl  in  bis  own  mind  as  to  tho  sonrce 
borrowed  from,  because  Phila~9tcr  Is  much  less  faithful  In  its  adherence  to  any  verglons 
of  the  Spanish  Rtory  thus  far  found  than  Is  usual  in  the  Beaumont-Fletcher  p!ay». 
He  thinks  another  and  unknown  version  may  be  the  source. 


CHOICE    AND    TKEATMENT    OF  SOtJKCES.  49 

interest  and  effectiveness  of  situation  were  all  cardinal  virtues  in  Fletcli- 
er^s  e3^es — above  all,  the  delightful  maze  of  complications  through  which 
the  lovers  passed  to  final  felicity.  Such  stories  gave  Fletcher  the  stimulus 
which  his  imagination  needed  and  instinctively  sought,  so  that  he  moved 
with  absolute  ease  among  the  materials  provided,  and  developed  the  ideas 
of  Cervantes  still  further,  at  the  same  time  that  he  supplemented  by  the 
Spaniard's  greater  creative  genius  traits  which  in  himself  were  hardly 
more  than  embryonic. 

The  significant  fact  in  Fletchers  use  of  Cervantes  is  that  with  him 
Fletcher  follows  his  sources  more  closely  than  anywhere  else,  while  such 
changes  as  are  introduced  serve  rather  to  strengthen  and  elaborate  the 
impression  made  by  Cervantes's  story  than  to  create  striking  departures 
or  additions.  A  rapid  reading  of  Hie  Chances  and  of  Cervantes's  La 
Senora  Cornelia,  on  which  the  play  is  based,  suggests  that  Fletcher  has 
done  little  more  than  to  dramatize  the  story.  It  is  only  on  a  closer  ex- 
amination that  the  various  details  of  difference  make  themselves  plain. 
Comparison  of  the  two  will  make  clear  both  the  likenesses  and  the  differ- 
ences, although  the  comparison  can  hardly  be  a  brief  one,  inasmuch  as 
the  countless  turns  of  the  plot  constitute  the  distinguishing  mark  of 
both  story  and  play.  The  play  is,  on  the  whole,  the  best  example  not 
only  of  Fletcher's  dramatic  affinity  for  Cervantes,  but  also  of  his  more 
felicitous  manner  in  plot  building.  Moreover,  it  is,  in  other  respects  as 
well,  one  of  the  most  satisfactory  and  characteristic  of  all  the  pla^-s  of 
his  especial  group. 

The  stor}^,  as  Cervantes  presents  it,  is  of  two  Spanish  gentlemen, 
Don  Juan  and  Don  xintonio,  who,  while  studying  at  Bologna,  have  be- 
come possessed  of  a  great  desire  to  see  a  famous  beauty,  the  Lady  Cor- 
nelia, who  lives  in  extreme  seclusion.  Juan,  wandering  about  one  night, 
was  suddenly  accosted  by  a  woman  who  inquired  if  his  name  was  Fabio, 
and,  receiving  an  affirmative  reply,  hastily  consigned  a  bundle  to  him  and 
disappeared.  The  bundle  proving  to  be  a  newborn  infant,  Juan  carried  it 
with  some  confusion  to  his  housekeeper,  and,  having  ordered  a  nurse 
for  it  and  a  change  of  its  costly  clothes,  returned  to  the  street  where  it 
had  been  given  him,  to  await  further  developments.  Xear  the  same 
house  he  found  a  gentleman  being  borne  down  by  several  assailants.  He 
put  them  to  flight,  and,  having  lost  his  hat  in  the  contrast,  was  prevailed 
upon  by  the  stranger  whom  he  had  helped  to  accept  of  his.  Returning 
home  he  met  Antonio,  who  told  him  that  a  little  while  before  he  had 
been  appealed  to  by  a  veiled  lady  who  begged  his  protection  and  whom 
he  had  brought  home  to  his  lodgings.    At  her  request  he  had  now  come 


50  BEAUMONT-FLETCHEE    PLAY8. 

out  to  render  assistance  to  some  one  who  was  likely  to  be  assaulted  but 
whom  he  had  not  yet  discovered.  Juan  explained  that  he  himself  had 
already  probably  accomplished  the  intended  rescue  and  the  tv/o  returned 
home,  Antonio  going  in  to  visit  the  lady,  while  Juan  peeped  in  upon  her 
from  outside  the  door.  She,  however,  saw  the  flashing  of  the  diamond 
in  his  newly-acquired  hat,  and,  taking  him  for  the  Duke  of  Ferrara, 
urged  him  to  enter.  This  he  did,  telling  her,  at  her  request  when  she 
had  discovered  her  mistake,  how  he  came  to  be  possessed  of  the  hat. 

The  housekeeper  passing  now  with  the  child,  the  lady  called  to  her 
to  bring  it  in  that  she  herself  might  care  for  it  for  the  sake  of  her  own 
child  from  whom  she  was  separated.  Then,  being  led  to  tell  her  story,  she 
declared  she  was  the  Lady  Cornelia  and  that  the  Duke  of  Ferrara  had 
long  been  attached  to  her,  but  until  now  had  found  it  impossible  to 
marry  her  publicly.  This  very  night,  however,  they  were  to  have  escaped 
to  Verona  together  and  there  have  been  married.  At  the  last  mo- 
ment her  brother  gave  signs  of  having  discovered  their  plans  and  her 
alarm  had  been  so  great  that  she  had  given  birth  to  her  child.  The  child, 
however,  had  been  at  once  conveyed  to  the  servant  of  the  duke,  in  wait- 
ing outside,  and  she  herself  had  followed  soon  after,  expecting  to  meet 
the  duke  and  proceed  to  Verona.  In  her  distress  at  missing  him  she 
had  come  upon  Antonio,  who  had  befriended  her  by  bringing  her  here. 
The  housekeeper  meanwhile  had,  at  Juan's  request,  dressed  the  infant 
in  its  rich  clothes,  and  when  it  was  presented  now  to  Cornelia  she  dis- 
covered it  to  be  her  own.  It  now  became  clear  also  that  the  nurse,  in 
delivering  it  to  Juan,  had  mistaken  him  for  a  servant  of  the  duke,  be- 
cause in  the  confusion  he  had  answered  to  the  name  of  Fabio. 

The  next  morning  Cornelia's  brother,  Petruchio,^not  knowing  of 
her  presence  in  the  house,  calls  upon  Juan  to  acquaint  him  with  the 
great  WTong  done  his  family  name  by  the  duke's  dishonor  of  his  sister 
and  to  ask  help  in  demanding  redress.  Cornelia  is  filled  with  conster- 
nation at  the  duke's  peril  when  she  hears  of  the  visit,  but  is  comforted 
by  assurances  from  Juan  and  Antonio,  who  both  set  forward  with 
Petruchio  in  search  of  the  duke.  They  soon  come  upon  him,  and, 
through  Juan,  whom  he  recognizes  by  his  hat,  the  duke  conveys  to 
Petruchio  assurances  of  his  honorable  intentions  towards  Cornelia  and  of 
his  readiness  to  marry  her  at  the  earliest  possible  moment.  All  are  soon 
reconciled,  and  when  Antonio  has  explained  Cornelia's  hiding  place  they 
set  out  at  once  to  seek  her.  Antonio  arriving  in  advance,  however,  dis- 
covers that  she  and  the  child  have  disappeared  in  company  with  the 
housekeeper.     He  is  filled  with  confusion,  but  takes  heart  on  hearing 


CHOICE    AND    TREATMENT    OF  SOURCES.  51 

that  one  of  the  servants  has  a  lady  called  Cornelia  shut  up  in  his  room, 
and  rushes  in  only  to  discover  her  to  be  a  courtesan  of  that  name.  The 
duke,  arriving  soon  after,  meets  with  the  same  experiences  and,  becom- 
ing suspicious  of  the  two  Spaniards,  leaves  the  house. 

Meanwhile  Cornelia  has  been  persuaded  by  the  housekeeper  that  her 
brother  has  carried  off  her  protectors  in  order  to  get  possession  of  her, 
and  80  she  has  let  herself  and  her  child  be  removed  to  the  house  of  a 
curate  in  a  neighboring  village.  The  duke  happens  there  one  day  soon 
after,  having  turned  aside  from  his  search  for  Cornelia  in  order  to  take 
a  needed  rest.  The  curate  questions  him  carefully  as  to  the  cause  of  his 
obvious  distress,  then  brings  in  the  infant  dressed  in  the  jewels  which  the 
duke  had  given  Cornelia  and  then,  when  he  has  astonished  him  properly 
with  this  revelation  discloses  to  him  Cornelia  herself.  The  duke  is,  of 
course,  overjoyed  and  sends  off  at  once  for  Petruchio,  Juan  and  Antonio 
to  share  in  his  happiness.  First,  however,  on  their  arrival  he  pretends  to 
them  that  since  Cornelia  is  hopelessly  lost  to  him,  he  has  determined  to 
marry  a  beautiful  laboring  woman,  to  whom  he  has  once  made  secret 
promises.  This,  of  course,  angers  Petruchio  greatly,  but  the  sight  of 
Cornelia  herself,  presented  as  the  low  born  beauty,  disarms  his  wrath 
and  the  duke  and  Cornelia  are  straightway  united  by  the  curate. 

Such  a  succession  of  adventures  and  misadventures  would  seem 
to  have  been  devised  especially  for  Fletcher's  use  and  assuredly  it  did 
come  nearer  to  meeting  his  demands  than  the  material  used  in  any  other 
play.  The  same  constructive  principle  prevails  in  both  story  and  play — 
a  chain  of  incidents  regulated  only  by  chance — while  the  reigning  inter- 
est throughout  is  that  of  liveliness,  bustle  and  suspense.  But  even  with 
all  this  guaranteed,  Fletcher's  craving  for  complication  and  hurry  was 
not  satisfied  and  the  steps  which  he  took  to  develop  the  narrative  into  hig 
play  are  interesting  and  highly  significant. 

In  the  first  place  he  threw  the  whole  story  into  action  so  that  such 
parts  as  are  there  related  by  one  person  to  another  are,  in  the  play,  all 
put  before  the  eye.  He  followed  the  large  lines  of  the  main  action  with 
some  fidelity  until  the  latter  part  of  the  play,  but  constantly  widened 
it  by  the  development  of  latent  possibilities  or  by  the  introduction  of 
new  incidents.  At  the  last,  however,  he  departed  from  Cervantes  in  ways 
that  directly  contributed  to  multiplying  the  activity  on  the  stage  and 
to  heightening  the  effect  from  both  the  comic  and  the  spectacular  points 
of  view. 

The  first  act  has  a  constant  shifting  of  characters  and  places  and 
thus  sets  the  pace  w^hich  is  kept  up  throughout  the  play.    The  changes 


52  BEAUMONT-FLETCHER    PLAYS. 

from  the  story  are  all  inspired  by  the  desire  for  greater  complication  and 
comic  effect.  These  are  brought  about  chiefly  through  the  three  char- 
acters, Gillian,  Antonio  and  Vecchio.  Gillian,  the  landlady  of  Juan  and 
Frederick,  is  virtually  Fletcher's  creation,  since  she  figures  only  hazily  in 
the  original  story  as  a  motherly  and  amiably  meddlesome  soul.  As  the 
play  presents  her,  however,  she  is  the  strongly  comic  figure  of  the  entire 
group  and  her  unflagging  cleverness  and  spicy  dialogue  with  John  make 
her  one  of  the  most  successful  characters  that  Fletcher  has  attempted. 
The  other  distinctly  humorous  figure  is  Antonio,  Petruchio's  irasci- 
ble friend,  who  is  wounded  in  the  early  contest  and  who  appears  fre- 
quently throughout  the  play  to  give  vent  to  his  inevitable  explosiveness 
and  so  increase  the  general  comic  tone.  The  scene  where  his  wounds 
are  being  attended  to  and  the  one  later  where  he  rails  at  his  unfaith- 
ful mistress,  as  well  as  the  closing  one  where  he  arrives  in  hot  haste 
at  the  house  of  Vecchio  and  is  played  upon  by  the  irrepressible  John,  are 
all  inserted  to  show  him  off  in  a  strong  light  for  the  sake  of  making  a 
laugh.  In  all,  there  are  six  scenes  devoted  primarily  to  his  eccentricities, 
and  the  Second  Constantia  incident  is  evidently  diverted  into  connection 
with  him  in  order  to  justify  his  introduction  into  the  main  plot,  while 
her  lover,  for  the  same  reason,  becomes  a  servant  of  Antonio,  instead  of 
being,  as  in  the  story,  John's."  Vecchio's  character  is  slightly  foreshad- 
owed by  Cervantes  in  the  kindly  teasings  of  the  curate,  but  the  motive 
is  so  altered  and  extended  in  the  play  as  to  be  scarcely  more  than  recog- 
nizable. 

The  Second  Constantia  incident  is,  in  the  play,  drawn  out  into  con- 
siderably more  than  its  short  episodic  value  in  the  story,  since  it  makes 
John  and  Frederick  suspicious  of  each  other,  and  the  duke  suspicious 
of  both,  besides  delaying  considerably  the  discovery  of  the  First  Con- 
stantia. It  is  elaborated,  too,  to  include  not  only  another  figure  of  the 
courtesan  type,  but  a  group  of  revellers  who  would  doubtless  greatly  en- 
hance the  effect  of  the  acted  play.  The  removal  of  the  Second  Con- 
stantia to  another  and  gayer  dwelling  is  also  a  shrewd  device  for  in- 
creasing the  movement  of  the  play  by  sending  the  searchers  from  house 
to  house  and  so  providing  a  variety  of  experiences. 

Finally,  the  substitution  of  the  pretended  magician  for  the  curate  is 
also  a  dramatic  stroke,  since  it  provides  for  livelier  complications  and 
furnishes  an  effective  meeting-ground,  in  the  last  scene  of  the  play,  for 
all  the  various  interests  and  characters. 


^Notice  that  the  Juan  of  the  story  becomes  John  of  the  play,  the  two  Cornelias 
both  take  the  name  Constantia  and  Antonio  becomes  Frederick — the  Antonio  of  the 
play  being  quite  another  character  from  the  one  in  the  story. 

I 


CHOICE    AND    TREATMENT    OF  SOURCES.  53 

But  enough  has  perhaps  been  said  to  establish  certain  traits  as  dis- 
tinctly characteristic  of  Fletcher  in  the  choice  and  treatment  of  his 
sources.  It  is  apparent  that  whenever  he  found  material  at  all  adapted 
to  his  ideals,  he  took  little  trouble  to  invent  leading  situations,  but  gave 
himself  to  the  elaboration  of  those  which  he  borrowed  and  to  filling  in 
the  intervals  with  varied  interests  and  activities.  It  is  clear  too,  that, 
while  the  Spanish,  especially  Cervantes,  were,  of  all  his  sources,  the  best 
adapted  to  his  temper  and  aims  and  required  the  least  fundamental  of 
his  changes,  he  was  nowhere  content  to  use  his  material  without  adding 
considerably  to  its  dramatis  personae  and  through  them  and  otherwise 
to  its  motives  and  complications.  His  tendency  to  combine  several 
stories  into  one  of  the  plots  of  his  play  and  to  set  that  plot  off  by  an- 
other equally  full,  as  well  as  his  constant  resort  to  dramatic  conven- 
tions for  purposes  of  plot  amplification,  have  also  been  suggested.  Above 
all,  however,  and  through  all,  one  notes  the  sure  dramatic  instinct 
which  guides  him  to  material  capable  of  effective  presentation  and  the 
unhesitating  freedom  with  which  he  adapts  to  his  purposes  all  that 
comes  under  his  hand — acknowledging  no  obligation  to  either  historical 
or  poetic  truth  so  long  as  his  visualizing  sense  is  satisfied. 


GENERAL  DRAMATIC  PRACTICE. 

It  has  been  charged  against  Lope  de  Vega,  who  is  commonly  held 
to  have  created  the  Spanish  national  drama  and  who  probably  enjoyed 
the  greatest  popularity  of  any  dramatist  who  ever  lived,  that  he  sacri- 
ficed ^'dramatic  probabilities  and  possibilities,  geography,  history  and 
a  decent  morality" — all,  to  a  desire  for  immediate  applause."  He  him- 
self anticipates  the  charge,  and  defends  his  position  in  a  short  poem 
entitled  El  Arte  Nuevo  de  hacer  Comedias,  where  he  says:  ''I  know 
that,  although  the  plays  I  have  written  might  have  been  better  done  in 
some  other  way,  they  would  not  then  have  obtained  the  favor  which 
they  have  enjoyed;  for  often  a  thing  gives  pleasure  for  the  very  reason 
that  it  is  against  accepted  laws.  When  I  am  going  to  write  a  play,  I 
lock  up  my  rules  with  ten  keys  and  thrust  Terence  and  Plautus  out  of 
my  study;  for  truth  is  given  to  crying  out  even  from  dumb  volumes 
and  I  write  by  the  art  which  those  invented  who  aimed  at  the  praise 
of  the  multitude,  whom  it  is  but  right  to  humor  in  their  folly,  seeing 
that  they  pay."^  The  sentiment  of  the  lines  is,  with  slight  reservations, 
so  characteristic  of  Fletcher  that,  in  the  absence  of  direct  testimony  from 
himself,  it  may  serve  as  a  sort  of  key  to  his  method — at  least  as  an  intro- 
duction.^ 

There  are  indications  in  Beaumont's  verses*  on  The  Faithful  Shep- 

iTlcknor — History  of  Spanish  Literature.     Boston,  1891,   II,  pp.   307-8. 
Wbras    tio-Dramaticas    de    Frey    Lope    Felix    de    Vegu    Carpio.     In    Bihliotheca    <7« 
Autorcs  Espanolcs.     Tom.  38,  p.  230. 

«The  question  as  to  the  nature  and  extent  of  Fletcher's  indebtedness  to  Lop« 
de  Vega  suggests  an  extremely  interesting  and  important  subject  for  investigation, 
though  by  no  means  a  new  one,  since  the  hint  has  been  given  many  times  before. 
The  investigation  is  one  not  to  be  lightly  undertaken  considering  the  bulk  of  the 
Spanish  dramatists'  work  and  other  difficulties  Involved,  but  no  one  who  has  read  even 
a  few  plays  from  each  of  the  two  men  can  fall  to  be  struck  by  the  similarity  in 
dramatic  ideals  and  methods,  and  one  cannot  help  believing  that  valuable  results  would 
follow  a  detailed  study  of  the  problem. 

*"Why  should  the  man  whose  wit  had  ne'er  a  stain 
Upon  the  public  stage  present  his  vein 
And  make  a  thousand  men  In  Judgment  alt 
To  call  in  question  his  undoubted  wit, 
Scarce  two  of  which   can  understand  the  laws 

Which  they  should  judge  by,  or  the  party's  cause."     Dyce  ed.  I,  p.  234. 

54 


GENEEAL    DRAMATIC    PRACTICE.  55 

herdess  as  well  as  in  the  Induction  to  The  Woman  Hater^  and  through- 
out The  Knight  of  the  Burning  Pestle  that  he  had  a  considerable  dis- 
dain of  the  popular  taste.  However  that  may  be,  Fletcher  certainly 
by  temperament,  and  apparently  from  the  pressure  of  financial  neces- 
sity, was  led  into  accepting  the  applause  of  his  audience  as  the  ultimate 
standard  of  his  art.  That  he  succeeded  in  winning  this  applause  as 
few  other  dramatists  have  done,  is  beyond  all  question  to  those  who 
will  follow  such  testimony  as  the  Herbert  MS.,-  prologues,  and  com- 
mendatory verses-  afford,  while  the  later  accounts  furnished  by  Pepys,'^ 
Dryden,^  Langbaine,®  Geneste"  and  others  show  how  his  popularity 
continued  almost  unabated  for  many  generations  after  his  death.  That  he 
accomplished  this  end,  not  only  by  ignoring  the  severer  classic  canons 
but  also  by  the  frequent  sacrifice  of  many  of  the  fundamental  principles 
of  high  literary  art  is  a  fact  equally  obvious  on  even  a  hurried  perusal  of 
his  work.  Jusserand,  in  the  latest  volume  of  his  Histoire  litteraire  du 
peuple  anglais^  explains  the  success  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher  as  due 
primarily  to  their  immorality,  maintaining  that  they  raised  the  treat- 
ment of  indecency  to  a  fine  art  and,  in  making  it  please  by  its  own  in- 

^If  there  be  any  among  ymx  that  come  to  hear  lascivious  scenes  let  them  depart, 
for  I  do  pronounce  it  to  the  utter  discomfort  of  all  two-penny  gallery-men,  ye  shall  have 
no  bawdry  in  it.  .  .  .  How  it  will  please  you  is  not  written  in  my  part,  for  though 
yen  should  like  it  today,  perhaps  yourself  know  not  how  you  should  digest  It 
tomorrow.     Ibid.  II,  pp.  95-96. 

^Showing  not  only  the  frequency  but  also  the  great  success  with  which  the  plays 
were  presented  In  and  immediately  after  Fletcher's  own  day. 

^The  commendatory  verses  referred  to  are  those  prefixed  to  the  1647  Folio,  some 
of  which  were  written  during  Fletcher's  lifetime,  though  most  of  them  are  later 
Some  deductions  are  of  course  to  be  made  for  the  inevitable  fulsomenese  of  such 
tributes,  but  the  aggregation  of  praise  In  this  case  Is  certainly  proof  of  Fletcher's 
great  popularity.  Shirley's  note  To  the  Reader  In  the  first  folio  contains  one  of  the 
most  frequently  quoted  encomiums;  it  declares  that  this  book  (the  folio)  is  "without 
flattery,  the  greatest  monument  of  the  scene  that  time  and  humanity  have  produced 
and  must  live,  not  only  the  crown  and  sole  reputation  of  our  own,  but  the  stain  of  all 
other  nations  and  languages  ;  for  It  may  be  boldly  averred  not  one  Indiscretion  hath 
branded  this  paper  in  all  the  lines."  The  prologues  are,  for  the  most  part,  less 
valuable  than  the  other  tributes  In  the  folio,  but  confirm  the  Impression  made  by 
the  others. 

*The  Diary  of  Samuel  Pepi/s,  M.  A.  F.  li.  S.     Ed.  II.  B.  Wheatloy.  1803-6. 

I'epys  makes  almost  constant  reference  to  the  successful  performance  of  Fletch- 
er's playi  during  his  own  day,  himself  seeing  three  of  the  Beaumont-Fletcher  plays 
to  one  of  Shakspere's. 

^An  Essay  of  Dramatic  Poesy  (1668).  "Their  plays  are  now  the  most  pleasant 
and  frequent  entertainments  of  the  stage — two  of  theirs  being  acted  through  the  year 
for  one  of  Shakespeare's  or  Jonson's."      Scott  Saintsbury   Kd.,  XV,  p.  346. 

'An  Account  of  English  Dramatick  Poets  (lOni).  pp.  208-218,  show  a  large  number 
of   Fletcher's  plays  being  still  acted  "with  great  applause." 

''Some  Account  of  the  EnuUsh  Stage  from  the  Restoration,  1660  to  1830.  Con- 
tinuous records  show  an  almost  unbroken  stage  popularity  for  Fletcher  down  to 
abo«t  1750. 

•II,  815. 


/      -         OF  THE  ^ 

I    UNIVERSITY 


V     . 


OF 


56  BEAUMONT-FLETCHEE    PLAYS. 

iierent  qualities  found  their  chief  title  to  public  favor.  That  such  an  ele- 
ment may  have  contributed  to  the  success  of  the  plays  is  likely  enough, 
liowever  lamentable  the  fact.  There  are  always  people  to  whom  such  an 
appeal  is  gratifying  and  the  number  of  such  people  was  perhaps  never 
larger  in  England  than  in  Fletcher's  generation  and  those  succeeding 
it.  This  explanation  is  hardly  adequate,  however,  to  account  for  the 
measure  or  variety  of  success  which  the  plays  met  with.  Besides  it 
should  be  noted  that  many  of  the  writers  of  the  commendatory  verses  of 
the  1647  Folio  and  even  Collier  in  his  Short  View  of  the  Immorality  of 
the  English  Stage  praise  Fletcher  for  his  superior  morals  and  purity; 
so  that  it  seems  clear  that  however  we  may  regard  him  today,  his  own 
age  and  the  succeeding  one  did  not  single  him  out  as  one  of  the  chief 
apostles  of  indecency.  Certainly  his  continued  popularity  through 
the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries  must  have  had  a  more  sub- 
stantial and  genuinely  commendable  basis  than  that  of  obscenity;  and 
in  our  study  of  Fletcher,  as  distinct  from  Beaumont,  it  becomes  a 
question  of  high  significance  to  discover  the  real  secret  of  his  popularity, 
and  to  measure  his  actual  merit  within  the  sphere  of  his  art.  How  far 
was  he  justified  by  his  aim — stage  success — in  disregarding  the  canons 
of  literary  taste  and  how  much  of  real  dramatic  genius  is  left  to  him 
after  all  possible  deductions  are  made  for  his  faults?  The  problem  is 
one  which  admits  of  more  debate  than  critics  are  apt  to  allow.  If 
Flet<)her  had  fixed  upon  the  highest  literary  excellence  as  his  goal  he 
might,  on  the  ground  of  his  many  derelictions  here  be  summarily  dis- 
missed as  a  failure;  for  while  there  is  no  infallible  authority  on  dra- 
matic proprieties  and  while  the  greatest  of  all  dramatists  broke  the  let- 
ter of  Aristotle's  rules  at  his  pleasure,  there,  nevertheless,  do  exist  cer- 
tain fundamental  principles  as  to  proper  dramatic  construction  and 
certain  accepted  standards  of  good  taste  and  morality  which  Shakspere 
held  in  respect,  but  which  Fletcher  set  aside  at  his  pleasure  or  conve- 
nience. It  is  not  that  he  violated  any  of  these  grossly,  except  where 
the  shallowness  of  his  own  moral  nature  was  at  fault,  or  that  he  treated 
any  of  them  with  intentional  disrespect;  but  his  attitude  towards  his 
art  was  characteristically  lacking  in  real  reverence  and  he  yielded  much 
to  immediate  favor  which  he  owed  to  his  future  good  name.  It  is  in- 
evitable, of  course,  that  such  flippant  and  ignoble  conceptions  as  he 
possessed  of  his  task  as  a  dramatist  should  bar  him  from  the  front  rank 
of  the  immortals;  and  yet,  after  all,  he  has  on  his  side  the  invincible 
argnmont  of  success  and  that,  too,  in  such  overwhelming  measure  that  it 
i*?  clonrlv  tho  crifir's  (hity  to  jndgo  him  for  a  time  by  his  own  standard 


1 


GENERAL    DRAMATIC    PRACTICE.  57 

and  look  in  the  direction  of  his  aims  in  order  to  discover  the  sources  of 
his  power. 

Courthope  insists  that  a  play  is  rightly  judged  only  when  it  is  read/ 
and  that  it  is  unfair  to  the  highest  order  of  dramatic  genius  to  praise 
a  dramatist  merely  because  he  pleases  the  taste  of  his  time  or  that  which 
follows  closely  after  that  time.^  "A  great  drama,"  he  says,  "must  satisfy 
two  conditions :  it  must  be  written  in  conformity  with  the  universal  laws 
of  art  and  it  must  reflect  the  characteristic  taste  of  those  for  whose  grat- 
ification it  was  first  composed."^  It  is  true,  of  course,  that  no  sharp  line 
can  be  drawn  between  the  requirements  of  the  stage  and  those  of  the 
literary  critic  of  the  drama,  and  it  is  beyond  all  argument  that  a  good 
play  should  satisfy  the  mind  as  well  as  the  eye.  The  play  which  can- 
not bear  the  test  of  a  quiet  reading  can,  of  course,  never  rank  as  a 
classic;  and  yet  it  is  true  that  many  plays  which  attract  large  and  rep- 
resentative audiences  and  hold  them  intent  throughout  the  presenta- 
tion are  completely  ignored  as  serious  literary  values  and  hardly  exist 
apart  from  the  stage.  They  prove  beyond  controversy — if  any  contro- 
versy ever  seemed  needed — that  a  play  may  be  entirely  lacking  in  high 
literary  quality,  and  even  flagrantly  culpable  according  to  long  standing 
dramatic  traditions,  and  yet  be  able  to  attract  and  gratify  people  of 
various  classes  and  grades  of  intelligence. 

Obviously  one  of  the  first  requirements  for  arriving  at  any  just 
comprehension  of  Fletcher's  genius  and  triumph  is  a  realization  of  the 
natural  differences  between  such  plays  as  aim  at  permanent  literary 
worth  and  those  intended  primarily  for  successful  presentation.  When 
once  the  reader  has  thrown  himself  into  the  attitude  of  the  spectator,  it 
is  easy  to  discover  countless  features  in  Fletcher's  plays  that  would  tend 
to  make  them  popular;  for  often  those  very  traits  which  so  vex  and 
weary  the  reader  become  the  chief  sources  of  the  success  of  the  acted 
play. 

One  needs  to  remember,  too,  that  even  in  our  own  critical  age  the 
average  theatregoer  does  not  carry  with  him  the  keen  analytical  zeal  of 
the  student  of  dramatic  literature.  Preparation  and  causation,  climax 
and  turning  point  suggest  a  technical  knowledge  of  which  he  is  guilt- 
less and  so  long  as  the  play  proves  continuously  interesting  and  makes 
a  pleasing  impression  as  a  whole,-  his  demands  are  satisfied  and  he  asks 
no  questions.  He  comes  provided  too  with  a  certain  readiness  to  shake 
off  the  limitations  of  the  actual  and  has  learned  to  accept  most  conven- 

»A  History  of  EngUsh  Poetry,  IV,   p.  319. 
>Ibid.,  IV,  p.  310. 
"Ibid..  IV,  pp.  201-202. 


58  BEAUMONT-FLETCHER    PLAYS. 

tions  as  stage  necessities.  His  memory  is  not  troublesome  and  he  even 
develops  a  fondness  for  certain  repeated  situations,  while  the  corre- 
spondence which  springs  up  between  them  and  his  own  mental  states 
enables  him  to  seize  the  implications  of  the  dramatist  readily  and  pro- 
vides him  with  an  enjoyment  undisturbed  by  the  necessity  for  effort.  His 
morals  become  flexible  too  and  he  adopts  an  attitude  of  "specialized 
ethics"  that  makes  him  accept  without  a  quaver  situations  and  senti- 
ments which  in  real  life  would  constitute  for  him  a  scandal  hardly  to 
be  thought  of.  In  fact,  he  feels  himself  in  another  world  and  so  long 
as  the  illusion  is,  in  any  way,  convincing,  is  glad  to  have  it  so.  What- 
ever touches  his  imagination  or  his  sense  of  humor  gains  his  approval 
and  the  combined  appeal  is  irresistible. 

We  may  easily  believe  that  the  audiences  for  whom  Fletcher  wrote 
were  not  radically  different  in  their  tastes  and  instincts  from  those  of 
the  present  day.  Moreover,  such  special  preferences  as  they  seem  likely 
to  have  had  were  of  a  kind  that  Fletcher  was  peculiarly  fitted  to  gratify ; 
for  they  brought  to  the  appreciation  of  his  improbable  plots,  imagina- 
tions trained  by  the  romantic  plays  of  Shakspere  and  they  fed  with 
Fletcher's  constant  moral  indelicacy  that  taste  for  the  questionable  which 
developed  steadily  through  the  Jacobean  and  Restoration  periods. 

It  is  clear  that  Fletcher's  task  of  pleasing  his  audiences  was  ren- 
dered easy  to  him  in  many  ways.  For  one  thing,  he  took  his  play  writ- 
ing lightly  and  had  neither  avowed  theories  to  live  up  to  nor  morals 
to  enforce.  He  belonged  to  no  school — unless  it  were  his  own  or  that 
of  Lope  de  Vega,  in  either  of  which  the  one  law  was  liberty — and  so 
he  never  learned  the  bondage  of  excessive  reverence  for  principles, 
although  l]c  did  not,  like  Lope,  set  himself  in  deliberate  antagonism  to 
any.  He  had  indeed  no  definite  attitude  towards  the  classical  traditions 
of  the  drama,  although  Spalding  may  not  be  wrong  when  he  finds  Fletch- 
er's judgment  impelling  him  at  first  towards  the  Jonsonian  type  of 
classicism,  while  liis  taste  drew  liiiu  towards  the  audacities  of  Shakspere.^ 
It  is  true  that  his  culture  and  his  associations  had  so  far  affected  him  as 
to  make  him  incline  indolently  and  half  admiringly  towards  more  than 
one  of  the  artistic  proprieties;  but  he  was  naturally  an  eclectic  and  he 
never  held  himself  to  any  principle  that  irked  him  or  failed  to  subserve 
his  immediate  end. 

It  is  obvious,  too,  that  this  aim  to  gratify  liis  public  was  yet  further 
facilitated  by  the  remarkable  agreement  between  his  temper  and  that  of 


^Beaumont  and  Fletcher  and  Their  Contemporaries.     Edinburgh  llevlew,  LXXICI, 
pp.  209-241. 


GENERAL    DRAMATIC    PRACTICE.  59 

his  age.  It  was  an  age  wearied  of  the  earlier  Elizabethan  ardors  and 
blunted  in  its  moral  and  artistic  sense,  when — as  G.  C.  Macaulay  has 
pointed  out  in  a  connection  similar  to  this — the  theatre  had  ceased  to 
be  the  expression  of  patriotism  and  of  the  national  life  and  had  become 
the  amusement  of  the  idle  gentleman  and  of  such  members  of  the  lower 
classes  as  were  not  kept  awa}^  by  the  Puritan  disapproval  of  the  stage. ^ 
It  was  an  age,  too,  which  except  among  people  of  definitely  Puritanical 
tendencies  was  in  no  mood  to  be  preached  at,  although  it  might  be 
laughed  at,  if  the  laugh  was  cleverly  contrived;  above  all,  it  must  be 
entertained  and  amused.  It  is  not  strange  then  that,  in  order  to 
gratify  such  tastes,  Fletcher  fell  into  the  writing  of  romantic  plays; 
since  in  them  the  element  of  adventure  gave  the  stimulus  to  curiosity, 
while  the  large  interfusion  of  the  comic  doubled  the  likelihood  of  their 
acceptance. 

Coming,  however,  to  a  more  minute  search  for  the  sources  of  Fletch- 
er's popularity,  it  seems  clear  that  every  distinctive  feature  of  his  plays 
contains  some  element  that  would  naturally  contribute  to  the  success 
of  the  acted  play.     Let  us  consider  a  few  of  them  briefly : 

(1)  Theme. 

The  choice  of  the  theme  of  romantic  love  was  a  felicitous  one,  be- 
sides being  a  virtual  necessity  in  view  of  the  character  of  the  plays.  It 
is  found,  to  a  greater  or  less  extent,  in  every  play  of  the  group  except 
Valentinian  and  Rule  a  Wife  and  Have  a  Wife  and  in  ten  of  them  is 
lajgely,  if  not  entirely,  the  impelling  force  of  the  main  plot.  The  lov 
ers  are  taken  through  a  bewildering  succession  of  tribulations,  which 
are  occasionally  grievous,  usually  comic,  and  often  both,  but  which  in- 
variably tend  towards  the  blissful  consummation  which  the  popular  in- 
stinct demands.  Indeed,  this  optimistic  principle  is  followed  so  faith- 
fully in  the  group  of  plays  attributed  to  Fletcher  alone  and  so  largely 
in  the  third  group  that  one  is  led  to  credit  Beaumont  quite  definitely 
with  the  unhappy  fates  of  Aspatia,^  Evadne,"  and  Euphrasia,-^  and  to 
suspect  Fletcher  of  the  moral  evasion  by  which  Arbaccs^  is  saved  from 
the  outward  appearance  of  guilt  and  yet  allowed  the  gratification  of  his 
sinful  love. 

(2)  Setting. 

There  was  much  also  in  the  setting  of  Fletcher's  plays  to  appeal 

^Francis  Beaumont,  A  Critical  Study,  pp.  186-188. 

'The  Maid's  Tragedy. 

^The  Maid' 8  Tragedy. 

*I'hilaster. 

'.1   King  anid  No  King. 


60  BEAUMONT-FLETCHEB    PLAYS. 

to  the  taste  of  tho  time.  His  fondness  for  splendid  effects  is  shown 
in  the  fact  that  a  large  proportion  of  his  plays  deal  with  kings  or  reign- 
ing dukes  and  thus  necessitate  royal  audiences,  courtiers  and  fine  trap- 
pings of  various  sorts.  Besides  these,  masques,  processions,  cathedrals, 
temples,  music,  flowers  and  countless  other  accessories  contribute  to  the 
general  impression  of  brilliancy.  Moreover,  the  places  chosen  are 
usually  suggestive  not  only  of  romance  but  also  of  especial  scenic  beauty. 
Indeed,  Fletcher  rarely  failed  to  verify  the  half-satiric  words  of  the 
Induction  to  The  Woman  Hater,  "A  duke  there  is  and  the  scene  lies 
in  Italy,  as  those  two  things  lightly  we  never  miss."^  Not  that  he 
ever  really  reproduces  the  distinctive  atmosphere  of  the  place — any  more 
than  he  does  the  subtler  national  traits  in  his  characters — but  he  does 
create  a  generically  romantic  tone  which  is  not  too  highly  specialized 
for  adaptation  to  any  locale  and  which  contributes  a  necessary  element 
to  the  large  illusion  attempted. 

Then,  too,  the  world  that  Fletcher  created  within  this  setting, 
while  to  a  considerable  extent  imaginary,  was  peopled  with  characters 
sufficiently  close  to  the  usual  range  of  moral,  intellectual  and  emotional 
life  to  command  the  interest  of  an  average  audience.  The  very  limita- 
tions which  prevented  his  comprehension  of  the  subtleties  of  life  and 
character  fitted  him  for  presenting  their  more  superficial,  but  no  less 
popular,  aspects;  while  the  cheap  morality  with  which  he  interlards 
his  plays  is  entirely  of  the  kind  to  satisfy  the  theatrical  conscience.  The 
sprightly  dialogue  too  would  constitute  a  steady  source  of  gratification; 
\J  for  Fletcher  is  past-master  in  the  art  of  clever  nonsense  and  rarely,  if 
ever,  lets  his  speakers  lapse  into  dulness.  Moreover,  this  motley  world 
has  scenes  for  every  taste,  with  its  courts,  its  country  and  city  houses; 
its  life  in  the  camp,  at  sea  and  in  the  forest;  its  views  of  madhouse  and 
nunnery;  its  serenades,  country  festivals,  morrice  dances  and  countless 
other  situations  and  varieties  of  human  activity. 

(3)     Conventions. 

If  we  continue  our  search  for  the  elements  of  Fletcher's  success  into 
his  methods  of  plot  building  and  of  characterization,  we  are  confronted 
at  once  by  a  trait  which,  from  the  reader's  standpoint,  is  entirely  un- 
pleasing  and  unpromising.  Indeed,  his  fondness  for  the  conventional 
is  so  extravagant  and  so  marked  that  it  becomes  a  question  whether  any- 
thing  appreciable  in  the  way  either  of  plot  or  of  character  would  be 
left  if  all  such  features  were  carefully  deducted  from  his  plays.     And 

'Italy    is,    of    course,    to    be    interpreted    in    the    broader    sense,    as    any    land    of 
romantic  tradition  or  beauty,  as  Italy,  Spain,  Sicily,  etc. 


GENERAL    DRAMATIC    PRACTICE.  61 

yet,  if  we  apply  our  principle  of  conceiving  of  the  play  as  in  action,  it 
cannot  be  denied  that  Fletcher  knew  how  to  choose  and  use  his  conven- 
tions so  as  to  make  them  directly  contributory  to  his  general  purpose; 
and  for  that  reason  a  somewhat  detailed  examination  of  them  seems  in 
place  at  this  point.  There  could  be  nothing  distinctive,  of  course,  in  a 
moderate  employment  by  him  of  the  more  popular  dramatic  conven- 
tions, but  his  untiring  and  pre-eminently  successful  recourse  to  them 
makes  his  practice  here  of  especial  importance. 

It  may  be  well  to  say  that  the  word  convention  is  not  employed 
here  in  its  narrower  and  possibly  more  accurate  sense  as  merely  some 
marked  departure  from  real  life  which  is  accepted  as  necessary  or  ad- 
vantageous for  stage  presentation,  but  as  including  also  any  plot,  char- 
acter, motive,  situation  or  dramatic  detail  of  what  variety  soever,  that 
by  frequent  usage  has  come  to  be  looked  upon  as  a  commonplace  of  the 
drama. 

The  conventions  may  be  conveniently  considered  under  two  main 
divisions:  (a)  conventions  of  plot  and  (b)  conventions  of  character. 

(a)     Conventions  of  plot. 
1.     Disguise. 

Disguise  is,  of  all  the  devices  to  which  Fletcher  resorted,  the  one 
most  overworked,  and  yet  it  is  the  one  to  which  he  owed  most  in  the  gay 
confusion  of  his  comedies  and  the  important  complications  of  his  serious 
plots.  Thus  in  The  Wild  Goose  Chase  there  are  six  disguises;  in  The 
Pilgrim,  five;  in  Women  Pleased,  four;  in  Monsieur  Thomas,  The  Loyal 
Subject  and  The  Mad  Lover,  two  each  and  in  The  Island  Princess  and 
also  A  Wife  for  a  Month,  one.  In  estimating  the  value  of  disguise  as  a 
dramatic  device,  the  reader  is  apt  to  forget  that,  whereas  it  is  all 
tediously  plain  to  him,  it  is  either  not  known  to  the  spectator  or  else — 
what  is  more  usual  and  vastly  more  effective — is  understood  by  him  but 
not  by  certain  interested  characters  in  the  play.  The  double  role  begins 
to  develop  absurdities  as  soon  as  it  is  discovered  by  the  audience.  Indeed, 
one  has  only  to  recall  the  moment  of  such  a  disclosure  in  the  acting  of  any 
play  today  to  remember  the  immediate  accession  of  interest  which  the 
situation  creates  and  the  responsiveness  with  which  the  audience  fol- 
lows the  countless  comic  complications  to  which  it  gives  rise.  Even  one 
clever  disguise  may  keep  a  play  bubbling  with  life  and  fun,  while  a 
rapid  succession  of  them,  as  in  The  Wild  Goose  Chase,  or  a  whole  group 
of  counter  disguises,  as  in  The  Pilgrim,  would  raise  the  interest  and 
absurdity  to  the  last  point  of  effectiveness.  The  humor  of  such  situa- 
tion was  enhanced  too  in  Fletcher's  day  by  the  fact  that  the  parts  for 


62  BEAUMONT-FLETCHER    PLAYS. 

women  were  played  by  men  and  boys  and  so  a  double  piquancy  was 
added.  It  is  no  wonder  that  Fletcher  was  quick  to  see  the  dramatic 
possibilities  latent  in  such  a  device.  It  was  his  constant  resource  for 
his  mischief  makers,  both  the  merry  ones,  as  Juletta'  and  Thomas,'  and 
the  real  villain,  such  as  the  robber  captain,  Roderigo.'  The  favorite 
use  for  it,  however,  is  in  the  gay  intrigues  of  lovers,  as  with  young 
Archas,*  Alinda,^  and  Belvidere,^  where  it  is  made  to  serve  the  purpose  of 
their  sudden  or  romantically  passionate  love — which  is  also  to  be  classed 
as  a  convention  and  may  be  considered  next. 

2.     Romantic  Love. 

As  already  suggested,^  the  motive  of  romantic  love  is  at  work,  in 
one  form  or  another,  in  nearly  every  play  of  Fletcher^s  especial  group. 
It  is  this  which,  by  its  employment  of  the  other  conventions  to  serve  its 
end,  gives  rise  to  most  of  the  adventures  and  complications  of  the  plots 
involved.  The  most  aggravated  use  of  the  motive  in  the  plays  of  group 
II  is  in  The  Mad  Lover,  the  plot  of  which  has  already  been  outlined 
in  the  discussion  of  Fletcher's  handling  of  Italian  material.^  There  it 
will  be  remembered  Memnon  is  first  smitten  with  a  desperate  pas- 
sion on  sight  of  the  beautiful  princess  and  later  his  subordinate 
Syphax  coming  to  beg  her  compassion  for  his  commander  is  overcome 
by  the  same  irresistible  force,  whereas  Calis  herself  is  soon  afterwards 
seized  with  a  passion  equally  precipitate  and  compelling  when  she  be- 
holds the  brother  of  Memnon  come  to  beg  her  mercy  for  the  one  so 
grievously  afflicted.  The  fantastic  exaggeration  of  the  motive  here  is 
closely  paralleled  in  group  III  in  The  Laws  of  Candy,  where,  in  the 
fashion  of  Midsummer  Night's  Dream,  Philaster  loves  Erota,  Erota 
loves  Antinous  and  Antinous  loves  only  his  father,  while  his  father  loves 
only  himself.  A  more  restricted  use  of  the  motive  is  found  in  Monsieur 
Thomas,  where  Francisco  becomes  so  possessed  of  love  for  Cellide  that 
lie  is  speedily  brought  to  death's  door  by  his  efforts  to  conceal  it  and 
is  saved  only  by  Valentine's  renunciation  of  all  claim  to  her.  Among 
other  numerous  instances  in  point  Armusia  in  The  Island  Princess, 
Olympia  and  young  Archas  in  The  Loyal  Subject,  and  Isabella  and  the 
widow  Ileartlove  in  Wit  Without  Money,  may  be  noted. 


•In  Ttie  Pilgrim. 
'Monsieur  Thomaa. 
rrne  Pilgrim. 
*'I'he  Loyal  Hubjcct. 
*The  Pilgrim. 
'Women  Pleased. 
T.  59. 
«Pp.  44   ff. 


GENERAL    DRAMATIC    PRACTICE.  63 

3.  Conversion. 

By  far  the  most  unconvincing  of  all  the  conventions  used  for  seri- 
ous effects  is  that  of  conversion^  or  sudden  change  in  the  fundamental 
nature  of  a  character.  It  is  evident  that  Fletcher  frequently  used  it  as 
a  dramatic  makeshift  and  compelled  it  to  do  duty  where  subtler 
processes  were  demanded  by  the  laws  of  spiritual  development.  If  a 
character  was  needed  in  two  different  roles,  he  rarely  concerned  himself 
to  evolve  the  second  from  the  first,  but  brought  the  earlier  one  along 
in  undiminishing  magnitude  up  to  a  given  point  and  then  by  some 
magical  stroke  caused  it  to  disappear  in  a  flash  and  substituted  the  other 
in  its  place.  As  is  frequently  the  case  with  his  devices,  this  is  obviously 
done  either  to  give  rise  to  another  set  of  incidents  growing  out  of  the 
unexpected  change  of  spirit,  or  else  to  enhance  the  general  impressive- 
ness  of  the  closing  scene — as  with  Frederick  in  A  Wife  for  a  Month  or 
Boroski  in  The  Loyal  Subject.  Used  for  serious  ends,  however,  the 
motive  is  invariably  unsatisfying;  for  not  all  the  vitalizing  force  of  the 
acted  play  or  the  generally  beatific  processes  of  the  last  scene  could 
reconcile  an  audience  to  these  changes  in  which  Fletcher  would  have  us 
believe. 

In  Fletcher's  comedies,  however,  which  frequently  tend  towards  the 
farce  in  type,  the  exaggeration  of  the  motive  becomes  the  chief  source 
of  its  success,  and  the  instance  of  the  making  over  of  Alphonso,  the  irate 
father;^  of  Margarita,  the  termagant  wife;-  and  of  Petruchio,  the  domi- 
neering husband,*  are  all  justified  to  an  audience  by  the  effect  which 
they  produce,  if  not  by  the  chain  of  causes  which  lead  up  to  the  final 
result. 

4.  Discovery  or  recognition  of  the  lost. 

The  situation  of  a  child  separated  from  its  parents  and  later 
brought  back  to  a  joyful  recognition  is  a  favorite  one  in  the  Beaumont- 
Fletcher  plays,  and  so  it  is  in  no  especial  sense  distinctive  of  Fletcher. 
It  is  found,  however,  in  two  plays  of  his  group — Monsieur  Thomas  and 
The  Humorous  Lieutenant.  The  motive  derives  primarily  from  the 
classical  sources,  but  was  frequent  in  the  Italian  novelle  and  so,  mainly 
through  this  medium,  became  one  of  the  popular  resources  of  Eliza- 
bethan dramatists  in  building  their  plots.  Sometimes,  as  in  Beaumont^s 
Triumph  of  Love,  it  is  brought  over  directly  from  the  Italian;  while 
in  others,  as  in  Fletcher's  Monsieur  Thomas,  it  is  woven  into  the  bor- 
rowed plot.    Thus  the   Plutarch  story  neither  in  the  original   nor  in 

^The  Pilgrim. 

*Rul0  a  Wife  and  Have  a  Wife. 

zThe  Woman's  Frize. 


64  BEAUMONT-FLETCHER    PLAYS. 

Bandello  or  Paynter  gives  any  hint  of  Antiochus  being  thought  other 
than  the  son  of  Seleucus,  but  Fletcher  makes  him  a  lonely  youth 
adopted  by  Valentine  because  of  his  resemblance  to  a  son  lost  years  ago. 
Then,  after  Valentine  has  given  up  his  betrothed  in  order  to  save  the  life 
of  this  youth  Francisco,  Fletcher  is  ready  with  the  final  compensa- 
tion of  the  discovery  that  Francisco  himself  is  the  long  lost  son. 

5.  Domestic  quarrels. 

The  penchant  for  domestic  strife  forms  a  counterpoint  to  that  for 
romantic  love;  for  the  old  themes  of  the  hectoring  husband  and  the 
virago  wife  were  too  popular  to  escape  Fletcher's  eye.  Rule  a  Wife  and 
Have  a  Wife,  The  Womaris  Prize  and  Women  Pleased^  all  deal  with 
such  subjects  and  are  among  the  most  popular  of  the  plays  of  Fletcher's 
group. 

6.  Retribution,  or  the  deed  returning  upon  the  doer. 

The  device  in  every  way  most  characteristic  of  the  nimbleness  and 
versatility  of  Fletcher's  wit  is  that  in  which  the  trick  comes  back  upon 
the  trickster  and  the  intriguer  is  outwitted  at  his  own  game.  This 
serves  the  double  purpose  of  equalizing  the  rewards  and  punishments  and 
of  keeping  up  the  tone  of  activity  and  intrigue.  Sometimes  it  is  meant 
bo  set  forth  the  more  serious  dramatic  ironies,  as  in  The  Loyal  Suhject,- 
where  Boroski's  disgrace  comes  upon  him  at  the  very  banquet  which 
he  had  planned  for  the  destruction  of  Archas ;  or  in  ^  Wife  for  a  Month/ 
where  Duke  Alphonso  is  restored  to  his  reason  by  the  very  draught 
which  was  meant  to  cause  his  death  and  so,  quickly  displaces  the  brother 
who  had  thought  to  secfure  himself  on  the  throne  by  the  evil  deed.  Then 
again,  it  turns  a  serious  plot  into  a  comic  one,  as  in  The  Mad  Lover/ 
where  Syphax,  in  seeking  to  entrap  Calls  into  marrying  him,  is  duped, 
by  a  counter  trick,  into  marrying  his  own  deserted  mistress,  Cloe.  The 
happiest  use  made  of  the  motive,  however,  is  when  it  is  comic  through- 
out, as  where  Petruchio'  is  punished  for  all  his  schemes  of  subjugating 
his  wife,  or  where  Thomas^  is  overtaken  in  his  tricks  upon  his  sweet- 
heart Mary. 

7.  Asides. 

It  is  always  a  dangerous  thing  for  a  dramatist  to  resort  to  the  ei- 


*Women  Pleased  has   the   theme  only   In  the   sub-plot   and   even   there    It   is   less 
prominent  than  In  the  other  two  plays, 
"IV.  0-6. 
«IV.  4;  V.  1,  3. 
♦V.   4. 

'^The  Woman's  Prize. 
'Monsieur  Thomas. 


i 


GENERAL    DRAMATIC    PRACTICE.  65 

travagant  use  of  asides,  for  besides  the  uonaturalness  of  the  device,  it 
frequently  spoils  the  subtlety  of  a  situation  by  overstating  it,  or  eren 
by  stating  it  at  all.  This  was  a  constant  pitfall  for  Fletcher;  and  yet, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  rapid  movement  and  many  turns  of  his  plots 
made  him  look  upon  asides  as  a  necessary  guide  to  the  spectator  in  fol- 
lowing the  action,  while  the  steady  stream  of  confidence  between  the 
actor  and  his  audience  was  a  species  of  incidental  flattery  to  which  the 
pit,  at  least,  was  not  insensible.  In  all  his  situations  of  double  entendre, 
as  of  disguise  or  deception  of  any  kind,  asides  are  a  foregone  conclusion. 
Thus  in  The  Pilgrim  and  Monsieur  Thomas,  which  abound  in  such 
situations,  the  largest  numbers  are  found,  although  The  Island  Princess, 
in  which  the  governor  of  Temata  plays  an  extended  double  part,  and 
Rule  a  Wife  and  Have  a  Wife,  in  which  two  couples  are  working  as- 
siduously to  outwit  each  other,  also  give  many  examples  of  its  use. 
Valentinian"^  is  perhaps  the  best  play  for  the  study  of  its  more  serious 
employment,  since  Lucina  is  being  deceived  during  the  earlier  part  of 
the  play,  while  Maximus  in  the  later  acts  is  thinking  upon  revenge  and 
secret  ambitions  and  so  is  constantly  leading  a  double  life.  As  usual, 
however,  Fletcher  breaks  down  in  his  attempts  at  these  graver  effects, 
although  he  knows  how  to  use  the  device  most  successfully  for  comic 
situations,  as  in  the  listening  scenes  in  The  Chances'  and  The  Wild 
Goose  Chase,*  which,  with  their  running  comment  from  the  hidden 
observer,  are  among  the  most  laughable  that  he  has  produced. 
These  are  only  a  few  of  the  devices  to  which  Fletcher  resorted  for 
the  filling  out  of  his  plots.  Others  are  touched  on  elsewhere — espe- 
cially in  connection  with  his  treatment  of  sources  and  his  stagecraft — 
and  various  others  are  necessarily  omitted.  Such  an  excessive  use  of 
ideas  not  his  own  undeniably  argues  some  lack  of  creative  faculty,  and  yet 
it  shows  an  equally  undeniable  cleverness  in  supplementing  his  limita- 
tions and  a  rare  wisdom  in  selection  and  adaptation.  Here  as  elsewhere 
Fletcher  was  a  most  discriminating  borrower  and  while  he  may  seem  at 
first  glance  to  have  left  no  convention  unused,  he  has  proved  his  dramatic 
genius  no  less  by  his  preferences  than  by  his  omissions.  More  than  one 
of  the  popular  conventions  of  his  own  day  and  earlier  were  either  neg- 
lected by  him  or  given  slight  emphasis,  because  they  offered  too  little 
in    the    way    of    dramatic    vitality    and    general    stage    effectiveness.* 

»See  especially  II,  2,  III,  1. 
•II,  3. 
•II,  2. 

*Mr.  Thorndike  in  a  private  letter  (April,  1905,)  emphasizes  what  he  calls  "the 
modernity"  of  Fletcher's  conventions,  his  avoidance  of  some  much  used  by  Lyly,  Cliap- 
maa,  and  Shakspere,  and  his  especial  fondness  for  conversions  and  retributions. 


66  BEAUMONT-FLETCHEE    PLAYS. 

Without  Shakspere's  power  to  individualize  the  type  strongly,  in 
either  character  or  situation,  he  knew  how  to  utilize  every  dramatic 
possibility  offered  by  either,  and  in  the  eyes  of  the  spectator  doubtless 
atoned  for  his  lack  of  depth  and  subtlety  by  the  skill  with  which  he 
borrowed  and  adapted.  He  knew  how  to  take  away  from  his  conven- 
tions the  unnaturalness  of  set  devices  and  to  make  them  pass  into  the 
general  structure  of  the  play.  This,  to  be  sure,  is  not  always  true  in 
his  slighter  and  more  incidental  use  of  them,  but  in  such  plays  as  The 
Pilgrim  or  The  Mad  Lover  it  is  very  strikingly  the  case;  for  in  both 
the  conventional  motives  become  the  life  of  the  play  and  its  moving 
force.  Indeed,  as  a  rule,  they  enter  closely  into  the  action  of  the  plot 
and  serve  not  only  to  heighten  but  often  to  bring  about  the  main  com- 
plications and  resolutions  of  the  plays. 

It  is  evident,  however,  that  Fletcher^s  influence  upon  the  drama 
was  in  this  particular  most  injurious;  for  while  he  himself  probably 
drew  as  much  immediate  advantage  from  the  use  of  conventions  as  any 
other  English  dramatist,  he  helped  to  confirm  a  fashion  which  in  less  skil- 
ful hands  developed  into  a  simple  abuse  and,  as  such,  characterized  the 
drama  for  many  later  generations.  Indeed,  the  very  conventions  which 
he  chiefly  favored  persisted  so  long  that  if  one  reads  The  Rehearsal 
and  The  Critic,  two  satires,  the  first  on  the  drama  of  the  Eestoration 
and  the  second  on  that  of  the  early  eighteenth  century,  the  first  im- 
pression is  that  both  were  written  in  direct  ridicule  of  Fletcher's  plays, 
although  we  know  that  Dryden  is  the  chief  target  for  the  first,  while 
Sheridan,  writing  more  than  a  century  after  Fletcher,  could  have  had 
only  indirect  reference  to  him. 

In  The  Rehearsal,  Mr.  Bayes  frankly  acknowledges  himself  pro- 
vided with  "a  book  of  Drama  Common  places"  which,  he  declares,  "we 
men  of  art  have  found  it  convenient  to  make  use  of.''*  In  his  com- 
ments on  his  play,  as  the  rehearsal  progresses,  he  proceeds  to  give  the 
clue  to  many  of  these  commonplaces  which  he  considers  effective.  Thus 
his  boast  that  the  scene  between  Prince  Prettyman  and  his  tailor  is 
one  of  "sheer  wit"  and  "as  full  of  Drollery  as  ever  it  can  hold";^  his 
repudiation  of  all  the  uses  of  a  plot  "except  to  bring  in  fine  things";' 
his  injunction  that  the  play  must  ever  be  interlarded  with  song  if  it  is 
to  appeal  to  "Pit,  Box  and  Gallery"  ;*  his  warning  that  the  heroine  may 


'I,   L 

»III,  1 
8III,  1- 
*III,    L 


GENERAL    DRAMATIC    PRACTICE.  67 

be  found  "not  dead  neither'^^;  his  device  of  the  prince  being  taken  off 
when  a  child  and  brought  up  as  a  fisherman;'  his  hero's  abandonment 
of  his  purpose  to  leave  town  because,  as  he  was  pulling  on  his  boots,  he 
suddenly  felt  himself  passionately  in  love;'  the  introduction  of  the 
funeral  scene;*  and  the  declaration  that  the  chief  art  of  the  drama 
is  to  "elevate  your  expectation  and  then  bring  you  off  some  extraor- 
dinary way/'^ — all  these  and  various  other  thrusts  in  the  play  sug- 
gest how  firmly  the  marks  of  Fletcher's  method  had  impressed  them- 
selves upon  the  Restoration  drama  and  to  what  absurdity  they  had  come. 
Nor  are  the  satiric  comments  and  illustrations  in  The  Critic  less  perti- 
nent in  their  application  to  Fletcher's  dramatic  devices,  though  they  fol- 
low too  much  the  same  line  to  warrant  being  quoted  here.  One  must 
beware,  of  course,  of  attributing  too  much  to  Fletcher's  single  influence 
in  continuing  the  various  conventions  which  prevailed  in  his  plays,  and 
yet  the  fact  that  he,  best  of  all,  certainly  after  Shakspere,  knew  how  to 
use  them  effectively  and  the  accruing  facts  of  his  sweeping  popularity 
on  the  stage  and  his  widespread  influence  over  succeeding  dramatists 
along  other  lines,  make  it  more  than  probable  that  he,  of  all  the  later 
dramatists  of  his  day,  had  the  largest  part  in  passing  on  the  conventions 
which  he  himself  favored  most. 

(b)     Conventions  of  character. 

Fletcher's  method  of  characterization,  as  regards  both  choice  and 
treatment,  partakes  so  largely  of  the  nature  of  the  conventional  as  to 
warrant  the  insertion  of  most  of  the  discussion  of  it  at  this  point, 
although  it  involves  the  inclusion  of  some  details  not  strictly  germane  to 
the  subject  of  conventions.- 

With  his  conception  of  his  characters  as  properly  subsidiary  to  the 
action  of  his  plays,  it  is  not  strange  that  Fletcher  determined  the  tem- 
peraments and  traits  of  the  former  by  the  spirit  and  necessities  of  the 
latter.  Choosing,  as  he  almost  invariably  did,  plots  with  unusual  and 
even  unnatural  situations,  he  inevitably  produced  for  them  characters  of 
a  correspondingly  abnormal  and  highly  emphasized  stamp. 

1.     Adoption  of  Types. 

Dryden  was  right,  so  far  as  Fletcher  is  concerned,  when  he  said  of 
Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  "Humour,  which  Ben  Jonson  derived  from  par- 
ticular persons  they  made  it  not  their  business  to  describe."^  At  the  same 

»III,  2. 

nu,  2. 

»ITI,  2. 
*IV,  1. 
»IV,  1. 
^Esaay  of  Dramatic  Poesy,  ed.   Seott-Saintsbury,   XV,  p.    346. 


(58  BEAUMONT-FLETCHER    PLAYS. 

time  it  is  true  that  Fletcher's  characters  are  not  many  removes  from  the 
species.  He  recognized  its  dramatic  effectiveness  and  by  somewhat  en- 
larging its  equipment  and  by  slightly  reducing  the  stress  on  the  dominant 
quality  produced,  instead  of  the  humor,  the  type — a  species  which  escapes 
the  ultra-narrowness  of  the  Jonsonian  figure  and  which,  if  in  no  sense 
more  subtle,  is  yet  somewhat  less  remote  from  the  average  individuals 
who  make  up  society. 

So  far  as  the  exaggeration  of  a  single  trait  goes,  however,  a  few  of 
Fletcher's  characters  are  too  close  to  the  humor  variety  to  be  described 
by  any  other  name.  The  play  of  The  Humorous  Lieutenant  even  derives 
its  name  from  the  temperamental  eccentricity  of  an  otherwise  insignifi- 
cant figure,  while  Alphonso  in  The  Pilgrim,  Memnon  in  The  Mad 
Lover,  and  Antonio  in  The  Chances  are  remembered  by  us  almost  entirely 
for  a  single  trait.  The  Folio  of  1679  even  makes  some  attempt  to  des- 
ignate the  humors  of  its  dramatis  personam.  In  the  main,  however,  the 
observation  will  hold  that  Fletcher's  characters  are  not  the  embodiment 
of  humors  in  the  Jonsonian  sense.  We  may  well  distrust  any  claim  of 
close  affinity  between  the  classic,  moralistic  Jonson  and  the  irresponsible 
and  irreverent  Fletcher.  They  were  too  different  in  moods,  methods 
and  aims  for  Fletcher  to  find  it  easy  to  adopt,  without  reservation,  any 
of  Jonson's  distinctive  practices.  Not  only  was  Fletcher's  hastiness  of  ex- 
ecution directly  against  his  attaining  to  the  fineness  of  finish  which 
marked  Jonson's  characterizations,  but  his  whole  theory  of  plot  structure 
was  opposed  to  Jonson's  habit  of  making  the  action  revolve  about  the 
characters  so  as  to  set  off  the  prominent  trait  in  each.  Moreover,  Jonson 
was,  from  his  particular  angle  of  vision,  really  concerned  with  the  inner 
life  of  his  characters,  while  Fletcher  sought  only  the  outward  manifes- 
tation of  this  spirit,  and  even  that  only  as  a  means  to  an  end.  Jonson's 
character  studies  are  limited  in  scope,  but  deep  and  intense;  Fletcher's 
are  somewhat  broader,  but  light  and  superficial ;  for  he  cares  to  see  only 
the  obvious,  and  constantly  reminds  us  of  Mr.  Puff's  words  in  introducing 
Sir  Christopher  Hatton :  "You'll  know  Sir  Christopher  by  his  turning 
out  his  toes."' 

It  is  to  be  noted»  too,  in  connection  with  Fletcher's  adoption  of 
types,  that  the  resemblance  in  the  plots  of  his  plays  favored  the  repeti- 
tion of  certain  conventional  figures,  while  tlie  exigencies  of  the  roman- 
tic drama  in  general  required  no  wide  range  of  emotional  experience  or 
elaborate  differentiation  along  psychological  lines  among  the  charac- 
ters chosen.    Indeed,  the  sudden  loves,  sharp  contrasts  and  constant  sur- 


^The  Critic,  II,  1. 


GENERAL    DRAMATIC    PRACTICE.  69 

prises  in  which  the  plays  abound  demand  the  repetition  of  certain  con- 
veniently endowed  personages  who  will  harmonize  with  this  particular 
world  and  not  be  likely  to  question  its  marvels.  These  figures  are  suffi- 
ciently varied  from  one  play  to  another  to  meet  the  demands  of  the 
differences  in  the  story,  but  resemble  each  other  so  strongly  in  their  fun- 
damental qualities  as  to  fall  easily  under  the  head  of  types  and  to  submit 
themselves  to  a  somewhat  elastic  classification,  which  will  be  consid- 
ered as  soon  as  we  examine  the  chief  influences  determining  Fletcher's 
choice  of  his  characters. 

2.  Social  rank  of  the  characters. 

It  has  been  the  fashion  to  believe  that  Fletcher  was  distinctly  an 
aristocrat  in  his  choice  and  treatment  of  his  characters,  and  had  no 
sympathy  with  any  layer  of  society  below  that  of  the  leisure  class, 
Dryden's  well-known  remark  that  they^  "understood  and  imitated  the 
conversation  of  gentlemen  much  better"-  than  Shakspere  has  probably 
done  a  good  deal  to  accentuate  that  belief.  If,  however,  one  studies 
Fletcher's  attitude  towards  the  various  social  orders  carefully,  he 
becomes  convinced  that  there  was  no  lack  of  interest  in  the  lower 
classes,  but  that  the  higher  ones  offered  him,  in  general,  more  advan- 
tages for  the  purpose  which  he  had  in  view.  Thus,  the  spectacular  pos- 
sibilities which  a  court  setting  offered  were  sure  to  furnish  a  definite 
attraction,  while  the  leisure  of  the  upper  classes  for  amusement  and 
adventure  were  almost  a  necessity  for  the  fun-loving  and  romantic  world 
in  which  his  plays  chiefly  revolved.  When  once  these  conditions  were 
assured,  he  loved  to  fill  in,  where  it  was  possible,  with  a  group  of  the 
socially  obscure,  and  was  quite  as  ready  to  draw  attention  to  his 
plebeians  as  to  those  of  noble  birth.  Thus  Gillian,  the  hostess  in  The 
Chances,  is,  by  all  odds,  the  most  interesting  character  of  the  play, 
while  Syphax,  a  common  soldier,  in  The  Mad  Lover,  and  a  brother  to 
the  maid  of  the  princess,  is  given  an  important  part  in  the  plot.  It  is 
natural,  of  course,  that  this  attitude  should  be  more  perceptible  in  the 
comedies  than  elsewhere,  but  the  host  of  background-figures  everywhere 
— doctors,  lawyers,  tutors,  citizens  and  their  wives,  country  clowns,  gay 
maids  and  valets — are  all  accorded  sufficient  importance  to  prove  that, 
with  Fletcher,  rank  was  not  a  primary  consideration,  so  long  as  a 
character  had  anything  of  interest  to  contribute. 

3.  The  principle  of  contrast. 

It  is  clear  that,  in  the  choice  of  his  characters,  Fletcher  had  con- 


^Theu  meaning  Beaumont  and  Fletcher. 

'Essaxj  of  Dramatic  Poesy.     Scott-Salntsbury  Ed.,  XV,  p.  346. 


70  BEAUMONT-FLETCHER    PLAYS. 

stant  recourse  to  the  principle  of  contrast — to  such  an  extent,  indeed, 
that  Schlcgel's  comparison  of  the  plays  to  the  sheet  full  of  clean  and 
unclean  beasts  let  down  to  Peter  in  the  vision  is  an  apt,  if  not  an  ele- 
gant, description  of  them.^  Thorndike  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that 
in  each  of  the  six  romances  on  which  his  own  study  is  based  one  or  more 
good  women  may  be  found  contrasted  with  one  very  evil  one.  In  Fletch- 
er's own  group,  however,  six — Bonduca,  The  Loyal  Subject,  The  Island 
Princess,  The  Pilgrim,  The  Wild  Goose  Chase  and  The  Woman's  Prize — 
are  all  lacking  in  any  really  evil-minded  women,  however  slight  their 
moral  force  may  be.  A  more  frequent  form  of  contrast  in  Fletcher  than 
that  named  by  Thorndike  as  characteristic  of  the  early  romances  is  found 
in  the  virtuous  woman  who  is  tempted  by  the  evil  man.  But  in  almost 
countless  other  ways  the  motive  of  contrast  is  constantly  at  work.  Thus 
in  The  Loyal  Subject,  Theodore's  hot-headed  independence  contrasts  with 
the  tame  loyalty  of  Archas;  Belvidere,  in  Women  Pleased,  is  offset  in  her 
womanly  devotion  by  the  fickle  and  frivolous  Isabella;  while  the  love- 
sick Oriana  in  The  Wild  Goose  Chase  is  counterbalanced  by  the  maidens 
Rosalura  and  Lillia  Bianca,  as  Mirabel  is  in  other  ways  by  Pinac  and 
Belleur.  So  one  might  go  on  continuously  throughout  the  plays,  being 
always  reminded  of  Mr.  Puff's  emphatic  declaration,  "Aye,  that  antithe- 
sis of  persons  is  a  most  established  figure."-  The  method  is  tedious 
enough  to  the  reader  at  times,  from  its  baldness  and  over-emphasis; 
but  its  advantage  as  a  means  of  immediate  heightening  cannot  be  gain- 
said, and  there  are  many  instances  in  which  Fletcher  has  availed  him- 
self of  its  possibilities  with  great  skilfulness. 

4.  Borrowing  of  types. 

Dryden's  charge^  against  Fletcher  that  he  appears  to  have  borrowed 
every  character  except  one — Arbaces  in  A  King  and  No  King — from 
Shakspere,  would  be  a  hard  one  to  substantiate,  inasmuch  as  both 
authors  made  use  of  many  of  the  stock  figures  of  the  comic  and  roman- 
tic drama.  Mezieres  is,  however,  right  in  saying  that  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher  created  no  new  type,*  for  here,  as  elsewhere,  they  were  appar- 
ently content  to  forego  any  claim  to  originality  so  long  as  their  purposes 
could  be  accomplished  without  it. 

5.  Choice  of  types. 

a.     The  clever  maiden  in  love. 
When  we  pass  to  an  inquiry  as  to  the  types  of  character  most 

^Lectures  on  Dramatic  Art  and  Literature,  p.  470. 

»The  Critic,  11.  1. 

^Preface  to  Troilus  and  Cressida.     Scott-Salntsbury  ed.,  VI,  p.  274. 

*Le8  Contemporaina  et  Succesaeurs  de  Shakespeare,  p.  145. 


GENERAL    DEAMATIC    PRACTICE.  71 

prominent  in  Fletcher's  plays,  we  come  at  once  upon  his  favorite — ^the 
Lpleyer  love-sick  maiden.  Indeed,  there  are  only  three  plays — ^the  two 
tragedies,  Bonduca  and  Valentiniaii,  and  the  comedy,  Rule  a  Wife 
and  Have  a  Wife — which  do  not  furnish  their  quota  to  his  be\y  of  love- 
possessed  maidens,  and  in  almost  every  case  they  are  clever. 

There  are  minor  differences,  of  course,  in  this  numerous  group  of 
heroines.  Some  are  more  pronouncedly  sentimental  than  others,  and 
one  or  two^  are  lacking  in  piquancy  and  charm;  but  the  almost  unfail- 
ing mood  is  that  of  the  merry,  resourceful  maiden  who  can  at  all  times 
use  her  head  to  help  her  heart,  and  who  welcomes  a  jest  even  at  her 
lover's  expense.  This  spirit  always  saves  its  possessor  from  the  tame- 
ness  which  a  complete  surrender  to  sentimentalism  would  involve,  and 
is  the  determining  factor  in  the  atmosphere  of  many  of  the  comedies. 
Moreover,  it  is  of  decided  advantage  to  the  heroine  herself,  who,  if  mis- 
fortune comes,  rarely  spends  her  time  in  useless  laments,  but  sets  to 
work  to  overcome  it.  Belvidere  in  Women  Pleased,  Celia  in  The  Humor- 
ous  Lieutenant,  Livia  in  The  Woman's  Prize,  Mary  in  Monsieur 
Thomas,  and  Alinda  in  The  Pilgrim,  Eosalura,  Lillia  Bianca,  and  even 
to  some  degree  Oriana  in  The  Wild  Goose  Chase  are  of  this  type.  Indeed, 
the  figure  is  so  distinctive  a  one  in  Fletcher's  hands  as  to  serve  as  a  clue  to 
his  work  in  doubtful  plays  or  parts  of  plays.  On  the  other  hand,  we  have 
in  the  plays  of  Group  I  disconsolate  maidens^  who,  when  fortune  goes 
against  their  love,  accept  it  meekly,  without  thought  of  resistance.  To 
Fletcher's  restless  activitv,  such  behavior  would  have  seemed  most  unsat- 
isfying,  and  the  disasters  which  to  Beaumont's  Euphrasia  and  Aspatia 
seem  irrevocable  would  for  Fletcher's  heroines  have  constituted  only  a 
stimulus  to  increased  ingenuity.  Beaumont's  maidens  take  far  deeper 
hold  upon  us  by  what  Swinburne  calls  "the  subtle  pungency  of  their 
mortal  sorrow,^'^  but  they  lack  the  clever  lightness  and  mental  dexterity 
of  Fletcher's  heroines,  and  miss  the  charm  which  comes  from  the  spriglit- 
ly  independence  of  these. 

It  is  interesting  to  note,  too,  that  Fletcher  has  shown  himself,  on 
the  whole,  more  generous  than  either  Shakspere  or  Beaumont  in  the 
intellectual  endowment  of  his  women.  He  has  little  patience  with  their 
attempts  at  learning,  but  his  Juletta,  Alinda,  Mary,  Dorothy,  Bianca, 
Maria  and  others  show  how  he  delights  to  make  them  clever  even  at  the 


KTelllde   in   Monsieur  Thomas  and,   to  a   less   marked  degree,   Evanthe,  in  A   Wife 
for  «  Month. 

^Aspatia  in  The  Maid's  Tragedy  and  Euphrasia  in  Philastcr. 
'Studies  in  Prose  and  Poetry,  ed.  1894,  pp.  65-GG. 


72  BEAUMONT-FLETCHEK    PLAYS. 

expense  of  the  meii;,  and  the  wit  and  humor  of  the  play  more  frequently 
turn  on  their  contriving  than  on  that  of  the  heroes.  Clearly,  it  was 
Beaumont  who  carried  on  the  Ophelia  type,  while  Fletcher  continued 
that  of  Rosalind. 

b.  The  sentimental  hero,  however,  is  by  no  means  so  striking  a 
figure  as  the  corresponding  maiden;  for  he  is  usually  lacking  in  her 
verve  and  breezy  effectiveness.  There  are  exceptions,  it  is  true,  as  in 
the  ease  of  the  madcap  Thomas,  but  in  most  instances,  when  once  the 
fatal  passion  descends  upon  these  heroes,  they  are  powerless  to  do  aught 
but  entertain  it,  while  misfortunes  make  them  droop  as  despairingly  as 
Beaumont's  heroines  do.  So,  Memnon  in  The  Mad  Lover  loses  his  rea- 
son because  his  affection  is  not  returned,  and  all  the  scheming 
done  in  his  behalf  has  to  be  carried  on  by  others.  In  the  same  way, 
Francisco  in  Monsieur  Thomas  lies  down  to  die  because  of  his  appar- 
ently hopeless  love  of  Cellide,  while  Demetrius  in  The  Humorous  Lieu- 
tenunt,  for  a  similar  reason,  drops  into  melancholia,  shuts  himself  up 
in  his  chamber  and  weeps  without  ceasing.  Silvio  in  Women  Pleased 
and  Valerio  in  A  Wife  for  a  Month  are  more  resourceful,  but  it  is 
really  Belvidere  who  wins  the  victory  for  Silvio,  and  Valerio  does  not 
always  escape  the  suspicion  of  tameness.  Young  Archas  in  The  Loyal 
Subject  is  more  ingenious  than  either  in  following  out  his  love  for 
Olympia,  but  has  not  the  piquant  effectiveness  of  the  maiden  disguised 
as  a  youth. 

c.  The  clever  scapegrace. 

It  is  plain,  however,  that  Fletcher^s  favorite  hero  is  not  this  moon- 
ing lover,  but  the  light-hearted  youth  who,  no  matter  how  much  he 
loves,  will  not  consent  to  take  life  seriously.  It  is  into  characters  of 
this  type  that  Fletcher  seems  to  put  most  of  himself.  They  are  freest 
in  their  movements  and  moods  and  so  represent  his  most  successful 
efforts.  Thomas,  Valentine,  and  Dons  John  and  Frederick  are  examples 
of  this  class — irresponsible,  companionable,  burdened  with  no  Puritan- 
ical proclivities,  and,  in  every  way,  soldiers  of  fortune. 

4.  The  brave  soldier  is  a  figure  found  with  equal  frequency  in 
Groups  I  and  II,  and  so  is  not  especially  characteristic  of  Fletcher. 
Moreover,  in  spite  of  all  the  popularity  which  his  soldiers  appear  to 
enjoy,  this  is  not  one  of  his  most  successfully  drawn  types.  It  is  true  that 
Fletcher  is  fond  of  giving  them  a  certain  brusque  frankness  that 
becomes  them,  and  a  scorn  of  conventionalities  that  is  productive  of  con- 
siderable amusement  when  the  camp  is  exchanged  for  the  court  or  the 
soldier  becomes  a  lover.     He  furnishes  them  at  times,  too,  with  consid- 


i 


GENERAL    DRAMATIC    PRACTICE.  73 

erable  shrewdness,  as  in  the  case  of  Leontins  in  The  Humorous  Lieuten- 
ant; but  the  strong  fibre  of  rugged  manliness  is — in  spite  of  the  social 
crudeness — almost  invariably  lacking,  and  so  the  character  loses  what 
should  be  its  real  appeal.  Hardly  any  one  of  the  soldiers  of  Group  II 
is  equal  to  either  the  Mardonius*  of  the  first  or  the  Norandine'  of  the 
third.  Archas'  alienates  us  at  once  by  the  servility  of  his  loyalty ;  Mem- 
non*  is  evidently  weak-minded  from  the  first;  and  even  Caratach'  turns 
his  best  virtue  into  an  abuse. 

But  the  list  of  typical  characters  need  not  be  continued.  The 
chaste  maid  and  matron,  the  clever  servant,  the  testy  gentleman,  the 
merry  old  man,  the  evil  king  and  his  scheming  favorite  are  among  the 
number.  It  is  manifest  to  the  close  student  that  the  group  of  charac- 
ters with  whom  Fletcher  has  peopled  his  plays  have  in  them  little  of 
the  human  interest  by  which  those  of  Shakspere  commend  themselves 
to  us.  Indeed,  if  we  think  only  of  the  meagreness  of  their  natures 
and  the  narrowness  of  their  outlook,  the  wonder  is  sure  to  arise  that 
Fletcher  could  have  used  them  successfully;  and  yet,  if  we  keep  to  our 
guiding  principle  and  judge  by  the  standards  of  the  average  spectator, 
we  shall  find  that  there  is  not  one  of  the  types  to  which  Fletcher 
resorted  which  has  not  its  appeal  to  a  popular  audience  even  today — 
whether  impossibly  passionate  lovers,  deeply  dyed  villains,  or  whoever 
they  may  be.  It  is  clear  that  where  he  could  not  create,  he  knew  how 
to  select  with  an  instinct  almost  unerring. 

This  brings  us  once  more,  however,  to  the  suggestion  with  which  we 
began  our  search  for  the  sources  of  Fletcher^s  popularity — that  at  every 
stage  of  his  work  he  was  guided  by  the  immediate  effect  which  the  play 
would  produce.  Theme,  setting,  plot  and  characters  were  all  chosen 
and  presented  with  the  same  dominating  end  in  view.  Thus,  in  his 
dramatic  economy  there  was  no  waste  of  energy  or  material,  but  each 
step  which  he  took  in  the  construction  of  his  plays  advanced  him  defi- 
nitely towards  his  goal. 

M  King  and  No  King. 

*The  Knight  of  Malta. 
BThe  Loyal  Subject. 
*The  Mad  Lover. 
'Bonduca. 


VI. 

MASTERY  OF  STAGECRAFT. 

After  all,  the  search  for  the  sources  of  Fletcher's  popularity  comes 
back  to  the  fundamental  fact  of  his  perfect  comprehension  of  the  mys- 
teries and  problems  of  stagecraft.  He  carried  in  his  mind,  as  he  wrote, 
the  dimensions,  limitations  and  possibilities  of  his  stage,  saw  the  play 
in  action  and  the  audience  to  whom  it  must  appeal,  and  was  guided  in 
the  construction  of  each  scene  by  the  immediate  effect  it  would  produce. 
The  instinct  was  at  work  unfailingly  in  his  choice  of  material  for  his 
plays,  and  not  until  his  keen  visualizing  sense  assured  him  that  the  plot 
contained  a  sufficient  number  of  dramatic  situations  to  insure  the  stage 
success  of  the  play  does  he  appear  to  have  been  willing  to  proceed  to 
the  task  of  actual  construction.  These  being  once  made  sure  of,  as  a 
framework,  he  broadened  the  plot  by  such  conventions  and  devices  as 
would  heighten  the  interest  of  the  acted  play,  and  there  was  hardly  any 
such  detail  added  which  did  not  recommend  itself  to  him  on  this  basis. 

Variety,  continuous  movement,  and  spectacular  effects  were  the 
results  at  which  he  chiefly  aimed  in  the  staging  of  his  plays,  but  he 
gained  them,  not  by  making  large  demands  upon  the  resources  of  the 
stage  itself,  but  by  skilfully  supplementing  its  limitations,  so  as  to 
extract  tlie  utmost  advantage  from  such  possibilities  as  it  did  possess. 

(1)     A  vaiying  stage-group. 

For  producing  the  impression  of  activity  and  variety,  there  were 
many  devices  of  which  Fletcher  made  use.  A  constantly  changing  per- 
sonnel for  his  scenes  was  one,  and  it  is  interesting  to  note  the  kaleido- 
scopic fashion  in  which  his  figures  shift  in  any  of  his  characteristic 
scenes.  An  instance  of  this  is  the  scene  in  The  Wo7nans  Prize^  which 
results  from  Petruchio's  pretense  of  illness.  The  scene  is  in  the  hall  of 
Petruchio's  house,  and  begins  with  the  entrance  of  his  servants,  Jacques 
and  Pedro,  who  discuss  the  sudden  illness  of  their  master,  with  the 
result  that  Pedro  rushes  out  for  a  physician.  At  this  moment,  Marie, 
the  wife  of  Petruchio,  enters  the  hall  with  other  servants  and  excitedly 

'III,   4. 

74 


MASTEKY    OF    STAGECRAFT.  75 

urges  on  certain  packing  necessary  to  her  proposed  departure.  While 
that  is  in  full  movement,  enter  her  father  and  a  friend  of  Petruchio  to 
inquire  of  her  as  to  her  husband's  condition.  After  them  follow  her 
sister,  her  cousin  and  another  of  Petruchio's  friends,  all  discussing  his 
strange  illness.  Maria  meanwhile  insists  vigorously  that  the  disease 
is  infectious,  and  that  all  who  stay  endanger  their  lives.  As  they  talk, 
the  watch  whom  she  has  sent  for  to  attend  Petruchio  arrives,  and  Pe- 
truchio, roused  to  desperation  by  the  strict  confinement  to  which  his 
clever  bride  has  subjected  him,  calls  out  loudly  demanding  to  be 
released.  His  voice  reaches  the  group  standing  outside  in  the  court,  as 
he  accuses  them  of  starving  and  imprisoning  him,  and  finally  thrusts 
his  arm  out  of  the  window  to  show  the  soundness  of  his  flesh.  At  this 
moment,  however,  the  doctor  and  the  apothecary  arrive,  and  the  doctor, 
having  taken  the  patient's  pulse  by  an  examination  of  the  extended  arm, 
pronounces  him  the  victim  of  a  pestilent  fever,  and  orders  copious 
bleeding  to  relieve  the  inflammation.  With  that  he  departs,  and 
Maria,  re-inforced  by  his  grave  declarations,  finally  persuades  all  the 
household  to  desert  Petruchio,  and  goes  out,  leaving  him  in  charge  of 
the  watch.  Petruchio  rages  more  loudly  than  ever  now,  demanding 
to  be  set  free,  and  making  such  alarming  threats  that  the  attendants 
become  afraid  for  their  lives,  and  leave  him.  By  this  time,  however, 
he  has  succeeded  in  bursting  open  the  door,  and  rushes  out,  master  of 
the  situation  and  of  an  empty  stage,  and  vowing  vengeance  on  all  con- 
cerned in  his  humiliation. 

This  scene  might  be  paralleled  in  almost  any  of  the  comedies  so  far 
as  the  presentation  of  various  groups  and  activities  in  a  short  compass  of 
time  and  space  is  concerned.  Indeed,  the  tragedies  and  tragi-comedies  are 
not  far  behind  in  this  respect,  but  the  comedies  are  better  adapted  to  such 
crowding,  and  invariably  give  good  results,  while  the  more  serious  plays 
frequently  suggest  a  lack  of  repose.  Fletcher  has  come  nearer  than 
any  other  dramatist  to  solving  the  problem  of  perpetual  motion;  for 
not  only  is  somebody  constantly  coming  and  going,  but  everybody  bound 
for  any  P9int  whatever  passes  across  the  stage  and  stops  long  enough 
to  tell  his  errand — whether  servants  on  their  way  with  messages, 
doctors  bound  for  patients,  truant  husbands  bound  at  last  for  home, 
or  Idvers  going  trysting.  In  this  way  every  possible  factor  is  made  con- 
tributory to  the  general  effect,  while  serving  its  especial  end,  and  the 
impression  of  a  larger  cast  of  characters  than  really  belongs  to  the  play 
is  created  by  the  ceaseless  activity  of  those  employed. 

(2)     The  travelling  instinct  in  the  characters. 


76  BEAUMONT-FLETCHER    PLAiJS. 

The  fondness  of  Fletcher's  characters  for  actual  travel  is  one  of  his 
favorite  means  of  increasing  the  effect  of  motion.  Some  one  is  con- 
stantly preparing  for  a  journey,  setting  out  upon  one  or  arriving  home. 
Thus,  The  Wild  Goose  Chase  opens  with  the  return  of  Mirabel,  Pinac, 
and  Belleur  from  long  travels,  and  throughout  the  play  the  talk  is  so 
continuously  of  their  setting  out  again  that  we  are  never  quite  sure 
that  the  ground  is  not  moving  beneath  our  feet.  In  The  Pilgrims, 
this  seems  actually  true,  for  fromi  first  to  last  the  chief  dramatis  per- 
sonce  are  wandering  from  home  to  forest,  from  forest  to  madhouse, 
from  madhouse  to  forest,  and  from  forest  to  cathedral.  In  Monsieur 
Thomas,  not  only  are  Valentine  and  Francisco  represented  as  returned 
from  one  long  journey,  but  Francisco  sets  out  upon  another  and  is 
shown  as  in  the  midst  of  it  when  he  is  intercepted  by  Michael  and 
brought  back.  Thomas  also  is  reported  as  just  arrived  from  a  long 
stay  abroad.  Silvio,  in  Women  Pleased,  wanders  for  a  year,  and  we  are 
made  to  feel  ourselves  more  or  less  in  touch  with  him  during  all,  that 
time.  In  The  Chances  the  distances  compassed  are  less,  but  the  motion 
is  almost  constant,  for  there  is  hardly  one  of  the  turns  of  the  plot 
which  does  not  involve  a  scene  of  progress  from  one  place  to  another. 

(3)     Preparation  for  travel. 

There  is  frequent  preparation,  too, for  journeys  that  never  take  place, 
for  the  advantages,  as  a  comic  motive,  of  a  pretended  or  arrested  intention 
to  travel  are  sufficiently  great  to  warrant  the  frequent  use  of  such  situa- 
tions by  Fletcher.  The  bustle  and  stir  of  packing,  where  servants  rush 
confusedly  about  taking  do^vn  hangings  and  garments  and  heaping 
together  jewels,  plate,  linen,  etc.,  are  all  immensely  contributory  to  the 
general  impression  of  movement,  besides  being  highly  comic  in  many  of 
the  incidental  details. 

The  best  of  such  situations  in  Fletcher  is  the  one  in  Wit  With- 
out Money,  where  Lady  Heartlove  is  making  ready  to  leave  townj 
This  scene,^  which  is  really  contained  in  two  scenic  divisions  of  the* 
play,  and  extends  from  the  second  act  over  into  the  third,  opens  with  the 
entire  establishment  of  the  lady  in  consternation  because  of  her  unex- 
pected announcement  that  she  will  leave  at  once  for  her  country  resi- 
dence. The  servants,  Eoger,  Humphrey  and  Shorthouse — the  last  with 
only  one  boot  on — all  rage  over  the  inconvenient  vagaries  of  their  mis- 
tress, who  will  post  off  without  so  much  as  an  egg  being  ready  in  her 
country  larder.  As  they  talk,  a  fourth  servant,  Ralph,  appears  with 
the  news  that  the  carts  have  come,  and  that  there  is  no  one  to  load  all 

MI,  5;  III,  1. 


i 


MASTEEY    OF    STAGECKAFT.  77 

the  stuff  lying  in  the  hall.  Meanwhile,  the  mistress  herself  shonts  out 
angrily  for  help,  and  they  all  rush  in  to  her  assistance.  Now  Isabella, 
sister  of  Lady  Hartlove,  the  widow,  enters  and  pours  out  her  indigna- 
tion over  being  forced  away  from  her  new  love,  Francisco.  She  is  by 
no  means  placated  by  the  assurances  of  the  widow,  who  appears  at  this 
point,  and  urges  that  it  is  being  done  for  her  good.  Meanwhile,  Short- 
house  and  Humphrey  have  made  ready  for  the  journey,  and  show  them- 
selves at  the  door  prepared  to  mount  and  ride.  Roger,  however,  fol- 
lows just  behind  with  the  announcement  that  the  departure  is  delayed 
by  the  arrival  of  a  visitor,  and  in  a  moment  Lady  Heartlove,  who  has 
previously  left  the  room,  reappears  in  company  with  Valentine,  the 
brother  of  Francisco.  A  violent  infatuation  on  her  part  sets  in  at  once, 
and  she  determines  that  the  country  visit  must  be  abandoned.  Isabella 
meanwhile  has  equipped  herself  for  the  journey,  and,  suspecting  her 
sister's  secret,  is  fired  both  by  mischief  and  by  a  desire  for  revenge  to  urge 
an  immediate  departure.  The  widow,  of  course,  has  only  subterfuges 
to  offer  for  her  sudden  change  of  mind,  and  is  powerless  to  appease 
the  impatience  of  her  sister  until  it  occurs  to  her  to  offer  to  pay  a 
tailor^s  bill  of  one  hundred  pounds.  This  offer  Isabella  reluctantly 
accepts,  the  horses  are  ordered  to  be  unharnessed,  and  the  servants 
go  off  in  high  glee  over  their  escape  from  starvation  in  the  country. 

A  study  of  this  scene  from  first  to  last  reveals  the  fact  that,  in 
spite  of  its  constant  hubbub  and  movement,  there  is  nothing  which  pre- 
sents any  difficulties  in  the  staging.  Even  the  packing — which  involves 
the  only  necessity  for  numerous  stage  accessories — can  easily  be  con- 
ceived of  as  taking  place  out  of  sight,  although  the  whole  effect  of  con- 
fusion and  noise  is  gained  and  the  progress  of  the  process  is  evident 
from  time  to  time.  The  skill  of  the  playwright  appears  in  his  ability 
to  produce  his  atmosphere  and  results  almost  entirely  through  the  activ- 
ity of  his  characters,  and  not  by  reliance  on  elaborate  or  troublesome 
stage  contrivances. 

(4)  Rapid  change  of  scene. 

But  aside  from  the  actual  journeys,  or  the  preparation  for  them, 
a  considerable  effect  is  gained  in  the  plays  by  the  rapid  and  numerous 
changes  of  scene.  They  are  usually  simple  in  kind,  and  not  such  as 
involve  great  distances;  but  they  help  to  set  the  tone  of  the  play  by 
hurrying  us  hither  and  thither  into  a  variety  of  locations  and  adven- 
tures. This  is  especially  marked  in  the  first  act  of  The  Charices,  which 
includes  ten  changes  of  scene,  and  yet  is  so  skilfully  constructed  that 
there  is  no  wrench  of  the  imagination,  and  the  effect  is  entirely  pleasing. 

(5)  Abundance  of  domestics. 


78  BEAUMONT-FLETCHER    PLAYS. 

A  liberal  supply  of  servants  is  of  great  assistance  in  the  plays, 
since  it  facilitates  such  slight  additions  to  stage  furnishings  as  are 
needed  during  the  progress  of  the  action,  and  makes  easy  many  turns  of 
the  plot  that  might  otherwise  offer  difficulties.  It  furnishes,  too,  an 
unfailing  supply  of  messengers,  and,  besides  being  quite  in  keeping 
with  the  gentlemanly  world  in  which  Fletcher's  plays  chiefly  revolve, 
adds,  by  the  constant  goings  to  and  fro,  to  the  air  of  commotion  which 
prevails  in  his  dramas. 

(6)  Interplay  of  groups. 

The  interaction  of  two  or  more  groups  on  each  other  is  also  one  of 
Fletcher's  favorite  resources,  and  the  ingenuity  and  skill  which  he  shows 
in  his  various  applications  of  the  principle  to  his  plays  is  one  of  the 
best  proofs  of  his  knowledge  of  stagecraft.  The  double  group  motive 
has  several  obvious  advantages,  since  it  not  only  enlarges  by  suggestion 
the  compass  of  the  stage,  but  brings  into  exercise  the  possibilities  of 
the  inner  stage  and  the  balcony,  and  is  capable  of  being  made  most  effec- 
tive from  both  the  comic  and  the  spectacular  standpoints. 

For  the  comic  use,  the  listening  scenes  are  among  the  most 
successful.  Thus,  Mirabel,  in  The  Wild  Goose  Chase/  watches  the  dis- 
comfiture of  Pinac  in  Lillia  Bianca's  apartments,  and  comments  gaily 
on  his  companion's  sudden  reduction  to  submission.  John,  in  The 
Chances*  remains  peeping  at  the  door  while  Frederick  goes  in  to  talk 
with  the  lady  Constantia,  and  the  effect  of  John's  envious  ejaculations 
and  of  Frederick's  constant  anxiety  lest  John  shall  either  hear  his  con- 
versation with  Constantia  or  discover  his  own  presence  to  her,  has  all  the 
elements  of  a  comic  situation.  Monsieur  Thomas'  has  a  similar  scene 
where  Thomas  puts  himself  within  hearing  of  his  sweetheart,  Mary, 
though  out  of  her  sight,  and  then  pours  out  to  a  friend  a  story  of  pre- 
tended repentance  which  moves  Mary  to  tears  of  joy  until  he  inad- 
vertently reveals  his  trick  to  her,  and  gets  laughed  at  for  his  pains. 

The  same  play  gives  a  use  of  the  device  for  serious  purposes,  as 
where  Valentine  discovers  Francisco's  loyalty  to  him  by  overhearing 
Cellide's  offers  of  love.*  A  scene  like  this  is  also  to  be  found  in  A 
Wife  for  a  Month, ""  where  Valerio  becomes  convinced  of  the  steadfast- 
ness of  his  betrothed  Evanthe.     The  motive  is  at  its  best,  however,  in 

'II,  2. 
»II,  3. 

»rir.  1. 

Mil,    1. 

•I,  1. 


MASTEEY    OF    STAGECRAFT.  7« 

comic  situations,  though  doubtless  successful  as  a  stage  device  in  both 
the  comic  and  the  serious. 

Another  means  of  providing  a  double  grouping  is  the  placing  of 
a  part  of  the  action  indoors  and  the  rest  of  it  immediately  outside. 
1  This  frequently  calls  the  balcony  into  use  and  thus  gives  the 
edded  advantage  of  height  to  one  of  the  groups.  Fletcher  fully 
realized  the  scenic  possibilities  of  a  staging  of  this  kind,  and  his  plays 
abound  in  its  use.  Thus,  as  an  instance,  the  window  may  be  called 
the  most  important  stage  adjunct  of  his  comedies,  since  it  is  at  all 
'  times  a  great  contributor  to  the  sprightliness  and  picturesqueness  of  his 
scenes,  and  serves  as  an  equally  effective  background  for  comic  siege, 
parleyings,  serenades  and  trysts. 

One  of  the  gayest  scenes  in  the  whole  range  of  the  plays  is  the 
serenade  which  Thomas  gives  his  sweetheart,  Mary,  in  Monsieur 
Thomas.^  In  this  we  get  the  full  effect  of  the  two  groups.  Thomas  is 
down  below  with  his  fiddler,  his  servant,  Launcelot,  and  his  two  com- 
panions, Hylas  and  Sam,  while  Mary  and  her  maid,  Madge,  appear 
at  the  window  above.  The  songs  in  the  street  are  matched  by  others 
from  the  window,  and  a  scene  of  high  confusion  prevails,  to  which 
Launcelot  does  full  justice  in  the  description  which  he  gives  of  it 
later  : 

' '  The  gentleman  himself,  young  Master  Thomas 
Elivironed  with  his  furious  myrmidons 
(The  fiery  fiddler  and  myself)  now  singing, 
Now  beating  at  the  door,  there  parleying 
Courting  at  that  window,  at  the  other  scaling."- 

The  central  incident  of  the  festivity,  however,  comes  with  Thomas's 
attempt  to  climb  to  Mary's  window,  while  the  fiddler  is  making  music 
below.  He  reaches  the  top  of  the  ladder,  but  being  apparently  dis- 
mayed by  the  sight  of  Madge  disguised  with  a  devil's  vizard,  and  offer- 
ing to  kiss  him,  he  falls  to  the  ground  and  cries  out  loudly  that  his 
leg  is  broken  into  twenty  pieces.  At  that,  Mary  is  filled  with  com- 
passion, and  rushes  down  to  relieve  his  pain.  She  sends  all  flying  for 
help,  but  soon  discovers  that  Thomas  has  planned  the  whole  trick  for 
the  sake  of  being  alone  with  her.  Not  to  be  outwitted,  she  pretends 
compliance  with  his  wishes,  but,  dropping  her  scarf  intentionally,  begs 
that  Thomas  will  recover  it  for  her.  While  he  is  busy  in  the  search, 
she  slips  past  him  into  the  house  and  up  stairs,  where  she  straightway 
appears  at  the  window,  reminding  him  how  his  jest  has  turned  upon 
himself,  and  warning  him  to  be  off  before  the  surgeons  arrive. 

»ni,  3. 

'IV,  2. 


80  BEAUMONT-FLETCHER    PLAYS. 

(7)     Use  of  the  balcony. 

The  window  scenes  appear  to  have  been  connected  with  the  bal- 
cony, but  whether  this  was  invariably  true  or  not,  it  is  likely  that  those 
involving  the  use  of  ladders,  as  in  the  serenade  scene  just  cited,  were 
always  dependent  upon  this  for  their  upper  support.  The  ladder  is 
a  property  of  which  Fletcher  was  naturally  fond.  In  Women  Pleased/ 
for  instance,  it  is  much  in  evidence,  as  Silvio,  Claudio,  and  Soto  all 
attempt  to  make  use  of  one  in  scaling  the  wall  of  the  fortress  where 
Bclvidere  is  confined. 

The  upper  stage  is  of  frequent  service,  too,  not  only  in  various 
other  comedy  scenes,  but  in  the  play-within-tb  2-play,  and  in  the  stately 
and  serious  scenes  of  the  tragedies  and  tragi-comedies,  where  it  enhances 
the  spectacular  effect  by  the  impression  of  height  and  throws  one  group 
into  relief  against  the  other. 

The  play-within-a-play  is  discussed  a  little  later-  in  another  con- 
nection and  illustrations  of  its  skilful  use  are  given  them.  A  striking 
tragedy  scene  where  the  balcony  is  otherwise  brought  into  effective  use, 
however,  is  the  one  in  The  Triumph  of  Death ^^  where  Gabriella  throws 
down  the  bloody  heart  of  Lavall  to  the  Duke  and  his  suite,  and  then  drags 
the  lifeless  body  forward  into  their  view. 

Bonduca,  however,  is  the  play  which  makes  most  continuous  and 
effective  use  of  the  balcony  for  scenes  of  serious  interest.  Caratach 
and  Nennius  before  the  battle  ascend  the  hill  to  view  the  advance  of 
the  Roman  army*  and  later,  when  the  battle  is  on,  Poenius  and  Dnisus, 
watch  its  progress  from  some  eminence  in  the  background.^  There,  in 
full  view  of  the  audience,  but  lifted  above  the  army,  Poenius  expresses 
his  hopes  and  fears.  Bonduca  and  her  daughters  would  appear  here, 
too,  as  on  the  ramparts  of  the  fort  to  which  they  had  retreated  after 
the  Roman  victory.  The  great  scene  of  their  death  would  occur  here 
while  the  Roman  army  was  massed  on  the  larger  stage  below.^  The 
entreaties  of  Suetonius,  the  courageous  refusal  of  Bonduca,  the  younger 
daughter's  plea  for  life — indeed  all  the  details  of  the  scene  would  be 
doubly  effective  from  the  employment  of  the  upper  stage  and  would 

»i,  1,  s. 

"P.  81. 

*So.  T).  (The  inclusion  of  this  play  in  tlie  discussion  of  Fletcher's  stagecraft 
Beems  Justifiable  here  in  spite  of  Its  being  generally  excluded  from  the  treatment  of 
his  dramatic  method.     See  p.  30.) 

*III,  3. 

"Ill,  5.  Dyce  indicates  both  these  hills  as  on  the  side  of  the  stage,  but  I  see  no 
reason  for  doing  so  except  on  the  basis  of  modern  staging.  (See  stage  directloni, 
Dyre  «'d..   1Sn4.   Act   III,   Sc.   3  and  Sc.   5.) 

•IV,  4. 


MASTERY    OF    STAGECRAFT.  81 

make  an  intensely  dramatic  impression.  The  later  scenes  in  which 
Caratach  and  Hengo  figure  make  equally  successful  use  of  the  balcony. 
It  is  from  here  that  Caratach  watches  the  funeral  procession  of  Poenius 
winding  around  the  base  of  the  rock  where  he  and  Hengo  are  concealed.' 
The  admiration  which  he  has  for  the  dead  Roman  makes  him  forget 
all  considerations  of  safety  so  that  he  suddenly  steps  forward  into  view 
and  begs  to  have  the  body  set  down  long  enough  for  him  to  pay  his 
tribute  of  respect.  That  done,  the  bearers  go  their  way  leaving  him 
undisturbed  for  the  present;  although  their  discovery  is  to  lead  to  his 
capture  later.  Meanwhile  the  child  Hengo  is  suffering  agonies  of 
hunger  and  when  later'  they  discover  food  which  the  ungrateful  Judas 
has  placed  at  the  foot  of  the  rock  for  a  decoy,  he  begs  that  he  may  be 
let  down  by  a  strap  to  secure  it.  Caratach  consents  reluctantly  and 
just  as  the  child  reaches  the  bottom  of  the  rock  and  grasps  the  food, 
Judas  gives  him  a  mortal  wound.  The  sight  of  this  fires  Caratach  for 
vengeance  and  he  hurls  a  stone  at  Judas  that  causes  instant  death. 
Then  he  slowly  draws  up  the  dying  Hengo  and  mingles  comfort  with 
lamentation  as  long  as  there  is  a  sign  of  life.  Here  on  the  rock  the 
Romans  take  him  and  although  he  makes  some  resistance  at  first  he 
surrenders  when  they  promise  Hengo  an  honorable  burial.  With  that 
they  descend  from  the  rock  bearing  the  body  of  the  child. 

^  (8)  The  play  within  the  play. 

"  On  various  accounts  this  device  would  have  strong  attractions  for 
Fletcher  and  he  was  quick  to  adopt  it  when  the  need  for  diversion  or 
festivity  arose.  The  double  grouping  which  it  necessitated  was  of 
course  a  satisfaction,  especially  as  the  smaller  play  would,  according 
to  early  stage  traditions,  occur  on  the  upper  stage.  The  masques  doubt- 
less offered  the  strongest  appeal  because  of  their  spectacular  setting, 
and  we  find  them  variously  scattered  in  the  plays.  A  wedding  com- 
monly called  for  one,  as  in  Valentinian,^  A  Wife  for  a  Monfh,^  and 
Women  Pleased,^  and  in  The  Mad  Lover^  Memnon  is  diverted  from  his 
raving  by  a  hastily  improvised  masque  of  Orpheus. 
(9)  Music. 

The  constant  and  artistic  use  of  music  to  be  found  in  almost  all  of 
the  plays  is  one  of  their  great  attractions,  especially  from  the  point 


•V.  1. 
•V,  5. 
«V,  8. 
♦II,  6. 
"^V.  3. 
«IV,  1. 


82  BEAUMONT-FLETCHER    PLAYS. 

of  view  of  an  audience.  Fletcher  undeniably  had  a  strong  musical 
sense  and  showed  it  not  only  in  the  ease  of  his  versification  and  the 
generally  rhythmic  structure  of  his  lines  but  in  the  introduction  of 
music  at  all  points  in  the  action.  Often  it  is  only  the  music  of  the 
instrument  which  he  employs,  because,  as  Mr.  Puff  remarks,  "Nothing 
introduces  a  heroine  like  soft  music.''^  Besides  this,  however,  the  plays 
abound  in  songs  of  every  variety,  from  the  borrowed  ballad  of  John 
Dory'  and  the  various  other  rollicking  songs'  to  the  love  lyrics,*  which 
are  sometimes  of  exqr.isite  beauty.  The  gay,  light-hearted  company 
that  flit  through  Fletcher's  plays  are  by  nature  a  musical  group  and 
they  drop  into  a  song  as  easily  as  into  a  jest.  Every  play  exceipt  The 
Island  Princess  and  Rule  a  Wife  and  Have  a  Wife  contains  songs,  and 
some  of  the  gayer  ones  like  Monsieur  Thomas  are  dotted  throughout 
with  them. 

(10)  Phases  of  realism  presented. 

There  are  many  other  expedients  by  which  Fletcher  enhanced  the 
acting  value  of  his  plays  and  adapted  them  to  the  stage  of  his  day. 
Besides  the  more  general  contrivances  there  were  various  features  that 
were  sure  to  appeal  to  the  taste  of  the  time,  being — as  it  was — far  less 
sensitive  to  certain  phases  of  realism  than  our  own  of  the"  present  day 
is.  Thus  he  used  freely  both  madness^  and  drunkenness,^  which  were 
then  legitimate  and  effective  subjects  for  comedy.  Indeed,  the  mad- 
house scenes  in  llie  Pilgrim''  with  their  clever  differentiation  of  types 
would  have  points  of  interest  for  an  audience  now,  and  were  doubtless 
doubly  successful  with  those  for  whom  they  were  written.  Scenes  of 
pretended  illness^  and  death ,^  too,  would  delight,  no  matter  how 
realistically  they  were  portrayed  and  even  the  one  in  The  Woman/s 
Prize,^^  where  Petruchio  suddenly  rises  from  his  coffin  to  stop  the  per- 
secutions of  his  wife,  would  not  be  too  unpleasantly  suggestive  for  high 
comedy  effect.     Funeral  scenes  in  general  were  a  favorite  device  of 

^The  Critic,  II,  1. 

^The  Chances,  III,  2. 

^Monsieur  Thomas,  III.  3,  IV,  2,  etc.  ;  The  Woman's  Prize,  II,  6 ;  The  Chances, 
V,  3. 

*Valfntinian,  II,  5,  V,  8  ;  Woman  Pleased,  III,  4. 

^The  Mad  Lover,  The  Pilgrim.  Cf.  also  in  pjroup  III,  ISIice  Valour  or  The  Passion- 
ate Madman. 

'^Rule  a  Wife  and  Have  a  Wife,  V,  5  ;  The  Pilgrim,  II,  1  ;  Wit  Without  Money, 
V,  2  :  The  Humorous  Lieutenant,  IV,  4. 

•iThc  Pilgrim,  III,  7,  IV,  3. 

»The  Woman's  Prize,  III,  4,  V,  1 ;  The  Wild  Goose  Chase,  IV,  3 ;  Monsieur 
Thomas,  III,  8. 

^The  Woman's  Prize,  V,  4  ;  The  Mad  Lover,  III,  4,  V,  4. 

"V,  4. 


MASTERY    OF    STAGECEAFT.  83 

Fletcher's  both  for  serious  and  for  ultimately  humorous  motives.  The 
funeral  of  Poenius  in  Bonduca^  gives  a  striking  instance  of  the  first  use 
in  the  way  in  which  the  cortege  is  made  to  appear  and  reappear  in  first 
one  setting  and  then  in  another.  The  main  one  in  The  Mad  Lover^  is  even 
more  spectacular,  with  the  temple  and  the  courtiers  for  accessories,  but 
its  design  is  really  comic  and  so  it  is  in  the  end  less  genuinely  im- 
pressive. 

There  are  several  interesting  scenes  which  bring  the  common  peo- 
ple into  close  contact  with  the  court;  one  in  The  Humorous  Lieu- 
tenant^ where  the  citizens  crowd  into  the  court  to  see  the  ro3'al  recep- 
tion to  the  ambassadors  of  war,  and  another  in  A  Wife  for  a  Month^ 
where  they  come  to  see  a  masque.^  In  both  the  impression  is  vivid — 
even  in  reading — of  the  rush  at  the  doors,  the  condescension  of  the 
doorkeepers,  the  volubility  of  the  citizens  and  their  wives  and  the 
general  behavior  of  the  various  groups.  But  aside  from  their  value 
to  us  as  pictures  of  the  time;  aside,  too,  from  the  interest  which  they 
doubtless  aroused  in  audiences  familiar  with  the  conditions  represented, 
there  is  much  in  the  necessary  staging  of  such  scenes  that  would  con- 
stitute an  appeal  to  both  the  eye  and  the  ear. 

Coming  back  then  once  more  to  the  leading  thought  of  the  chapter, 
the  evidence  at  every  turn  makes  it  clear  that  Fletcher  achieved  his 
popularity  by  setting  himself  the  test  of  the  acted  play  and  that  in  the 
selection  of  his  material,  the  choice  and  presentation  of  his  characters 
and  in  every  detail  and  incident  of  his  plots  he  wrote  for  the  approval 
of  his  audience.  That  he  had  the  stage  manager's  instinct  so  highly  de- 
veloped as  to  be  well  nigh  infallible  was  in  large  measure  the  secret  of 
the  success  of  his  plays,  and  since  we  have  tested  him  thus  far  primarily 
by  his  own  aims  it  is  manifestly  our  duty  now  to  apply  to  his  dramatic 
practices  the  severer  aesthetic  principles  by  which  literary  critics  judge. 
This  application  is  the  purpose  of  the  following  chapter. 

W,   1,  2.      It  should    be   said   that   in   the   second   scene   the   cortege   need   not   be 
actually  visible,  but  the  effect  of  its  presence  is  clearly  given. 
»V,  4.  Cf.,  Ill,  4. 

'I,  1. 

♦II,  4. 

•Similar  scenes  in   The  Maid's   Tragedy  and  the  Induction  to  the  Four  Pl&yg  in 

One  furnish  Interesting  comparison. 


VII. 
TECHNIQUE. 

When  one  has  summed  up  Fletcher's  dramatic  theory  and  pointed 
out  the  chief  traits  and  devices  by  which  he  gained  the  favor  of  the 
public,  there  seems  little  remaining  to  be  said  of  his  technique  except 
by  way  of  illustrating  his  cardinal  principles  as  already  laid  down. 
Indeed,  it  seems  hardly  appropriate  to  apply  so  definite  and  uncom- 
promising a  term  as  technique  to  the  structure  of  Fletcher's  plays,  be- 
cause he  proceeded  largely  without  rules  and  apparently  had  no  guide 
except  a  certain  working  basis  or  general  attitude  towards  the  art  of 
play-writing.  For  this  reason,  any  attempt  to  measure  him  strictly  by 
classical  canons  will  necessarily  be  unsatisfactory  in  the  negative  charac- 
ter of  the  results  obtained.  It  is  also  true  that  such  an  artistic  creed 
as  he  did  possess  can  be  arrived  at  only  by  inductive  processes  and  was 
probably  not  clearly  shaped  in  his  own  mind.  At  the  same  time  it  is 
inevitable  that  a  dramatist  should  have  some  attitude  towards  the  funda- 
mental problems  of  dramatic  construction  and  it  may  be  worth  our 
while  to  attempt,  on  the  basis  of  his  practice,  some  inferences  as  to 
Fletcher's  theories  on  this  subject. 

(1)   The  Unities. 

Dry  den  gave  it  as  his  verdict  that  *^in  the  mechanic  beauties  of 
the  plot,  which  are  the  observation  of  the  three  unities — time,  place 
and  action — ^they  [Fletcher  and  Shakespeare]  were  both  deficient;  but 
Shakespeare  most."'  This  is  a  just  verdict,  for  while  Fletcher  did  not 
observe  any  of  the  unities  closely  he  was  not  a  flagrant  violator  of  the 
first  two,  at  least.  Indeed,  he  seems  never  to  have  taken  them  into 
serious  account  either  for  violation  or  for  observance,  but  rather  to  have 
left  them  to  shift  for  themselves  while  he  looked  to  other  demands 
which  appeared  to  him  more  imperative.  Beaumont  in  his  verses  on 
Volpone'^  expresses  a  deep  respect  for  "the  rules  of  time  and  place." 


^Preface  to   Troihis  and  Cresaida,   The  Grounds  of  Criticism   in  Tragedy.     Scott 
Salntsbury  ed.,  VI,  p.  265. 

'"I  would  have  shown 
To  all  the  world  the  art  which   thou  alone 
Hast  taught  our  tongue,  the  rules  of  time  and  place     • 
And  other  rites  delivered  with  the  grace 
Of  comic  style,  which  only  is  far  more 
Than  any  English  stage  hath  known  before." 

84  -^^ 


I 


TECHNIQUE.  85 

In  his  practice,  however,  he  manifests  considerable  independence;  and, 
indeed,  Dryden,  in  making  the  comment  cited  above,  had  in  mind  plays 
in  which  Beaumont  was  apparently  the  chief  worker.  But  whatever 
may  be  true  of  Beaumont,  Fletcher  announced  no  principle  and  in  his 
own  group  of  plays  shows  his  practice  to  have  been  of  a  thoroughly 
flexible  nature,  although  on  the  whole  distinctly  creditable  to  his  artistic 
instinct  and  discretion. 

(a)  Time. 

With  his  tendency  to  crowd  one  event  upon  another,  it  is  natural 
that  Fletcher  should  contrive  his  plays  so  that  we  receive  the  impression 
of  an  almost  continuous  action. 

Of  the  various  plays  of  Group  II,  The  Mad  Lover  and  The 
Chances  are  the  only  ones  which  come  within  the  limits  of  a  day  and 
night,  unless  we  include  The  Faithful  Shepherdess  and  The  Triumph 
of  Death,  both  of  which  meet  this  stricter  requirement.  The  Island 
Princess,  The  Loyal  Subject,  The  Wild  Goose  Chase,  Wit  Without 
Money,  and  The  Humorous  Lieutenant  obscure  the  time,  perhaps  pur- 
posely, in  order  to  strengthen  the  impression  of  rapid  movement. 
Others  still,  as  Monsieur  Thomas  and  Rule  a  Wife  and  Have  a  Wife, 
require  considerable  time  for  the  events  which  they  include.  In  A  Wife 
for  a  Month,  at  least  a  month  is  required,  while  in  Women  Pleased  more 
than  a  year  elapses,  since  Silvio  must  not  find  his  riddle  too  easy. 

In  the  tragedies  Fletcher's  practice  was  as  free  as  in  the  lighter 
plays.  Thus  Bonduca  extends  over  two  days  at  least,  since  Suetonius' 
in  the  earlier  part  of  the  play  speaks  of  the  battle  as  being  appointed 
for  two  days  hence.  The  action  of  Valentinian  suggests  a  much  longer 
time  than  this,  but  the  time-scheme  of  the  play  is  not  clear. 

(b)  Place. 

Fletcher's  attitude  towards  the  second  imity  is  as  indefinite  as  in 
the  ease  of  the  first.  He  varies  his  scene  frequently,  but  he  understands 
the  art  of  transition,  and  so  seldom  introduces  places  remote  from  each 
other  that  one  wonders  whether  he  did  not  purposely  abstain  from  the 
suggestion  of  great  distances  because  he  knew  that  the  imagination  of 
the  spectator  must  compass  them  and  so  lose  the  effect  of  a  compression 
of  events.  Some  such  motive  seems  more  probable,  althougli  it  is,  of 
course,  not  impossible  that  he  was  governed  by  some  slight  reverence 
for  the  unities  as  classical  requirements. 

(c)  Action. 

The  unity  of  action  is   of  all  the  one  which   Fletcher  must  be 

'JJontfuco,  I,  2, 


86  BEAUMONT-FLETCHER    PLAYS. 

granted  to  have  violated  flagrantly,  especially  if  the  term  is  to  be 
applied  only  in  its  more  rigorous  sense.  Coleridge,^  indeed,  called  the 
Beaumont^ Fletcher  plays  as  a  group  mere  "aggregations  without  unity'' 
and  in  an  important  sense  the  charge  is  a  just  one.  Fletcher's  plays 
especially  are  lacking  in  inner  coherence  and  strongly  vitalized  rela- 
tions; for  he  has  neither  the  wish  nor  the  power  to  single  out  some 
powerful  personal  center  for  his  plays  on  which  to  focus  all  the  interest 
of  the  action. 

In  the  tragedies  this  is,  of  course,  a  grievous  fault.  Thus  Bonduca 
has  its  dramatic  unity  in  no  human  soul  but  in  a  very  material  battle 
towards  which  all  earlier  events  tend  with  more  or  less  directness  and 
from  which  later  ones  result.  Valentinian  lacks  the  unity  for  another 
reason — that  it  has  two  heroes  and  two  fully  developed  tragic  actions 
instead  of  one.  Valentinian,  the  emperor  himself,  appears  first,  rises  to 
the  accomplishment  of  his  shameless  desire,  and  pays  the  penalty  for  it  by 
the  hand  of  Maximus.  Here  the  play  should  properly  end ;  but  the  aven- 
ger now  becomes  the  aggressor  and  brings  upon  himself  a  retribution  as 
final  and  as  just  as  that  which  he  had  inflicted  on  the  other.  From  this 
results  a  double-headed  tragedy  which  breaks  all  laws  of  artistic  moder- 
ation and  destroys  all  the  dignity  and  unity  of  the  play,  although  it 
must  be  conceded  that  the  immediate  interest  of  the  action  was  doubt- 
l-ess  eonhanced  by  the  procedure. 

It  is  manifest  that  the  same  fault  prevails  in  the  tragi-comedies 
as  in  the  tragedies,  although  the  former  may,  as  a  species  of  drama, 
claim  a  much  greater  freedom  in  form,  being  essentially  a  hybrid  which 
borrows  its  beginning  and  middle  from  tragedy,  its  ending  from  comedy 
and  its  spirit  somewhat  from  both.  For  this  reason  one  does  not  look 
to  find  its  passions  quite  so  overpowering  or  its  moral  law  so  inexorable 
as  in  tragedy.  If,  however,  the  inner  life  is  less  intense  it  should  still 
be  well  defined,  and  all  the  events  of  the  play  should  be  brought  into 
a  certain  relation  to  it.    This  Fletcher  never  really  attained 

The  outward  marks  of  unity,  however,  the  tragi-comedies  some- 
times have.  Thus  in  A  Wife  for  a  Month  the  structure  is  quite  regular 
and  the  action  simple  and  logical  in  its  development.  The  two  heroes — 
for  the  plot  is  really  double — advance  to  a  climax  of  misfortunes 
through  the  wicked  machinations  of  Frederick  and  his  favorite  Sorano, 
but  the  retributive  force  which  has  been  gathering  from  the  first 
descends  upon   the  evil  doers  when  they  feel  themselves  most  firmly 


^Lecture8  and  Notes  on  Shakspere  and  Other     English     Poets.      Ashe     ed.     1685, 
p.  400. 


ERSITY  ) 


OF 

TECHNIQUE.  '^^7 '1-2-^^'^'^  ^7 

established  in  power  and,  by  humbling  them,  brings  happiness  to  the 
others.  The  Loijal  Subject  is  similar  in  structure,  except  that  the 
fifth  act  is  distinctly  an  excrescence  on  the  unity  of  the  action,  which 
properly  ends  with  Archas's  restoration  to  favor.  The  play,  however, 
is  lengthened  out  to  include  a  new  series  of  events  in  which  Archas 
subdues  the  rebellion  raised  in  his  behalf.  The  only  unity  to  be  found 
is  in  the  general  theme  of  Archas's  loyalty,  along  which  is  strung  a  suc- 
cession of  happenings  as  various  as  Fletcher's  ingenuity,  working  on 
the  original  story,  could  devise.  The  Island  Princess,  if  it  may  be 
entered  as  corroborative  proof,  has  much  the  same  fault;  for  here  it 
is  Armusia  who  is  made  to  serve  as  peg  for  the  events  of  the  play  to 
hang  upon,  and  the  whole  story  of  the  Governor  of  Ternata  in  disguise 
is  appended  merely  for  the  multiplication  of  the  activities  of  the  play. 
The  personality  of  the  hero  does  not  dominate,  but  merely  serves  the 
interest  of  the  plot  and  the  looseness  of  design  is  fatal  to  its  artistic 
effect  as  a  whole. 

When  we  pass  to  the  sphere  of  the  comedies,  however,  the  lack  of 
genuine  centralization  is  so  much  less  fatal  that  at  times  it  appears  to 
be  almost  an  advantage.  The  variety  of  material  introduced  and  the 
countless  ripples  of  circumstance  certainly  militate  against  a  severe 
orderliness  of  structure,  so  that  the  comedies  would  rarely  lend  them- 
selves successfully  to  the  compact  and  severely  diagrammatic  effects  by 
which  Freytag  and  Miss  Woodbridge  are  fond  of  testing  plays.  They 
claim  no  bond  of  union  in  all  their  mass  of  heterogeneous  details  except 
the  centripetal  force  of  an  organizing  idea,  but  they  have  nevertheless, 
in  most  cases,  an  effective  consistency  of  tone  that  Jonson  with  all  his 
zeal  for  the  unities  does  not  exceed  or  even  always  arrive  at.  Fletcher's 
comedy  plots  are  laid  out  with  the  utmost  looseness  so  as  to  admit  of 
the  introduction  of  any  variety  of  incident  or  character  that  will  vary 
or  multiply  the  activity;  but  no  matter  how  extraneous  to  the  leading 
interest  they  may  appear,  the  various  elements  all  obey  the  spirit  in 
which  the  play  is  conceived  and  work  towards  the  development  of  a 
unified  impression.  Indeed,  Fletcher's  chief  ingenuity  is  spent  in  pro- 
ducing the  greatest  possible  variety  of  situations  that  will  emphasize 
this  general  effect;  for  he  has  usually  borrowed  his  basal  ideas  and  so 
is  able  to  give  his  full  energy  and  interest  to  the  elaboration  of  effective 
details.  Thus  haviiifir  found  in  Cervantes's  story  La  Senora  Cornelia 
the  fundamental  idea  of  chance,  he  exalts  that  motive  not  only  into 
the  title  of  his  play  but  into  the  moving  force  of  all  its  action,  multiply- 
ing throughout  both  main  and  sub-plots  whatever  characters  or  incidents 


88  BEAUMONT-FLETCHER    PLAYS. 

will  serve  to  illustrate  this  dominant  principle.  The  result  is  a  medley 
of  happenings  which  to  a  casual  observer  may  appear  hopelessly  unre- 
lated but  which  yet  carries  with  it  a  certain  Justification  in  the  accom- 
plishment of  its  aim.  Nor  can  one  quite  justly  blame  the  ingenuity 
which,  in  a  play  which  is  called  The  Chances^  devises  sufficient  mis-  | 
chance  to  keep  several  groups  in  confusion  up  to  the  last  scene  of  the 
play.  So  in  The  Pilgrim  the  dominating  idea  is  that  of  a  general 
chase.  The  confusion  is  endless,  but  it  is  intentional,  and  a  certain 
unity  prevails  through  all  the  complications  and  episodes,  even  when 
they  are  doubled  by  the  disguise  of  most  of  the  main  characters  of 
the  play. 

1.  Relation  of  the  several  plots  of  the  plays. 

Fletcher^s  unwearying  ideal  of  constant  activity  throughout  his 
plays  makes  it  natural  that  he  should  have  introduced  into  their  elastic 
structure  as  many  groups  as  his  ingenuity  could  in  any  way  combine,  and 
also  that  the  several  plots  should  at  times  not  be  clearly  defined  in 
their  relations  to  each  other.  In  both  the  tragedies  the  danger  is 
avoided;  for  in  Bonduca,  although  there  are  four  lines  of  interest,  the 
three  minor  ones  all  converge  to  the  main  one  and  bear  upon  one  course 
of  events ;  while  in  Valentinian  there  is  only  one  slight  episodic  interest 
and  nothing  that  may  claim  the  proportions  of  a  real  sub-plot,  although 
the  main  plot  itself  is  composed  of  two  successive  and  not  inseparable 
actions.  In  the  tragi-comedies  the  plan  of  construction  is  various. 
The  Island  Princess  and  The  Mad  Lover  have  one  most  important  in- 
terest and  such  episodic  details  as  are  introduced  are  woven  quite  easily 
into  the  main  structure.  In  Monsieur  Thomas,  The  Humorous  Lieuten- 
ant, and  Women  Pleased,  however,  there  are  two  quite  independent  plots 
thrown  together  merely  to  increase  the  activity  and  vary  the  tone. 

In  the  comedies  both  plans  are  successfully  used.  Thus  in  The 
Chances  and  The  Pilgrim  the  subordination  of  all  interests  to  one 
main  action  is  quite  definitely  and  skilfully  accomplished;  while  in 
The  Woman's  Prize,  Rule  a  Wife  and  Have  a  Wife,  The  Wild  Goose 
Chase,  and  Wit  Without  Money  there  are  two  lines  of  activity  which 
could  without  great  difficulty  be  separated  from  each  other. 

2.  Purpose  of  secondary  plots. 

Fletcher's  object  in  using  the  two  or  more  plots  in  a  play  is  various, 
although  in  no  point  unusual.  It  is  always  primarily,  of  course,  for 
the  sake  of  multiplying  activity,  but  there  are  at  least  two  other  aims 
deserving  of  note.  It  has  already  been  pointed  out  in  the  discussion 
of  Fletcher^s  treatment  of  his  sources,  that  he  frequently  added  one 


TECHNIQUE.  89 

plot  to  another  to  furnish  a  contrasting  tone.  This  would  naturally 
occur  most  frequently  in  the  tragi-comedies  where  a  serious  interest  is 
demanded  but  must  not  be  too  intense.  The  comic  plots  in  Monsieur 
Thomas,  The  HwnvoroiLS  Lieutenant,  and  Women  Pleased  are  so  used, 
as  also  the  comic  episodes  of  the  tragedy  Bonduca  and  the  romantic 
sub-plot  of  The  Loyal  Subject.  At  other  times  the  secondary  interest 
is  evidently  used  for  purposes  of  intensification  of  the  dominant  mood 
of  the  play,  as  in  The  Island  Princess,  A  Wife  for  a  Month  and  the 
tragedy  Valentinian.  This  motive  of  emphasis,  however,  is  never  suc- 
cessful in  the  serious  plays ;  for  although  the  play  gains  in  compactness 
of  structure  and  unification  of  interest,  its  final  effect  is  unpleasing 
and  inartistic  because  of  the  unbroken  and  exaggerated  tenseness  of  its 
spirit. 

In  the  comedies,  however,  the  effect  of  the  two  plots  upon  each 
other  is  almost  invariably  successful,  whether  they  are  meant  to  in- 
tensify or  to  contrast  with  each  other.  Usually  it  is  the  contrast  which 
is  aimed  at,  as  in  The  Wild  Goose  Chase,  where  the  sentimental  dis- 
tresses of  Oriana  are  offset  by  the  saucy  escapades  of  Eosalura  and 
her  sister. 

Fletcher  often  uses  the  minor  interests,  too,  to  fill  in  gaps  in  the 
main  one.  Thus  while  Silvio^  is  travelling  for  a  year,  Isabella's  gay 
intrigues  are  given  us  for  diversion  and  while  Francisco'  is  off  on  his 
journey,  Thomas  provides  our  amusement.  In  this  way  Fletcher  brings 
it  about  that  we  have  no  sense  of  waiting  for  the  travellers  to  return, 
but  receive  the  impression  of  a  continuous  action. 

3.     Means  of  connecting  the  plots. 

The  devices  which  Fletcher  adopts  for  connecting  the  groups  in 
a  play  are  usually  the  more  superficial  ones  of  kinship  or  of  service,  as 
in  Wit  Without  Money,  where  the  hero  and  heroine  of  the  sub-plot  are 
respectively  brother  and  sister  of  those  of  the  main,  or  in  Rule  a  Wife 
and  Have  a  Wife,  where  Estefania  of  the  one  plot  is  maid  to  Mar- 
garita of  the  other.  Flimsy  as  such  connections  appear,  however,  they 
are  not  disagreeably  obvious  in  the  play;  for  although  Fletcher  may 
fail  entirely  in  establishing  spiritual  dependencies  and  subtleties  of 
relation,  he  is  too  skilful  a  craftsman  to  neglect  the  outer  links  of 
dramatic  connection  and  avails  himself  of  every  opportunity  for  bring- 
ing his  groups  together.  Indeed,  the  characters  themselves  in  their 
restless  activity  contribute  greatly  to  this  end;    for  by  sheer  force  of 

*Women  Pleased. 
'Monsieur  Thomas. 


90  BEAUMONT-FLETCHER    PLAYS. 

proximity  and  of  continuous  movement  they  naturally  come  into  fre- 
quent contact.  Moreover,  Fletcher^s  instinctive  love  for  a  full  stage 
makes  him  shape  his  plots  almost  invariably  to  that  end. 

(2)     Introduction. 

It  is  the  established  duty  of  the  dramatist  to  indicate  near  the 
outset  of  his  play,  the  time  and  place  of  the  action,  the  nationality 
and  environment  of  the  hero  and  such  other  facts  as  are  necessary  for 
the  comprehension  of  the  events  about  to  take  place.  If  he  is  also  able 
in  the  opening  scene  of  the  play  to  forecast  its  mood  by  striking  its 
prevailing  chord,  the  mechanic  is  held  to  have  proved  himself  also  an 
artist  and  the  introduction  is  doubly  effective.  It  is  significant  that 
although  Fletcher  is  not  deficient  here  in  the  definite  requirements  he 
rarely  ever  attempts  the  subtler  and  deeper  effects.  His  lack  of  sensitive 
moral  intuitions  in  itself  prevented  his  succ3ssful  presentation  of  these 
last  in  tragedy,  but  his  craving  for'aetion  made  him  apt  to  set  aside  in 
all  his  plays  whatever  might  tend  to  delay  it.  To  put  before  his 
audiences  clearly,  briefly,  and  with  the  least  possible  effort  whatever 
it  was  needful  for  them  to  know  was  the  task  which  he  set  himself  and 
he  welcomed  few  devices  that  did  not  contribute  directly  to  this  end. 
It  evidently  seemed  to  him  the  best  economy,  as  a  rule,  to  devote  some 
time  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  play  to  mere  elucidation  and  so  he 
almost  invariably  begins  with  a  conversation  in  which  the  necessary 
facts  are  brought  to  light — sometimes  through  the  medium  of  explana- 
tions to  a  returned  traveller;  sometimes  through  the  talk  of  an  angry 
man;  and  frequently  by  still  other  devices.  Thus  in  The  Chances, 
The  Pilgrim,  The  Wild  Goose  Chase,  and  A  Wife  for  a  Month  the 
larger  part  of  the  first  scene  is  used  for  such  an  introduction  before 
the  main  characters  appear;  while  in  The  Loijal  Subject,  The  Island 
Princess,  The  Woman's  PHze,  and  Valentinian  the  main  characters 
are  not  visible  at  all  in  this  scene,  but  are  presented  entirely  through 
the  conversation  of  others.  In  The  Mad  Lover^  The  Humorous  Lieu- 
tenant, and  Monsieur  Thomas^  however,  we  come  upon  them  almost  at 
once,  while  in  Women  Pleased  one,  and  in  Bonduca  both  of  the  main 
characters  enter  into  the  opening  conversation.  Valentinian  is  perhaps 
Fletcher's  best  example  of  skilful  introduction,  but  it  has  already  been 
treated  in  some  detail  by  Symonds,^  and  for  that  reason  Bonduca  is 
'•hosen  as  an  instance  here. 

Caratach  and  Bonduca  appear  at  once  and  in  their  talk  show  us 
ihe  status  of  the  war  clearly  and  give  us  distinct  impressions  both  as 

»Sotne  Votea  on  Fletcher'B  VaUntinian.     Fortnightly  Review,  XLVI,  pp.  337-340. 


TECHNIQUE.  91 

to  their  own  individualities  and  as  to  the  bravery  of  the  Romans.  A 
skilful  touch  is  found  in  Caratach's  high  praise  of  Poenius  that  makes 
us  acquainted  with  his  early  heroism  and  the  glory  he  has  brought  to 
the  Eomans  before  we  learn  of  the  later  pride  and  rebellion  which 
might  otherwise  estrange  us  from  him.  Hengo,  too^,  is  well  touched 
in  with  his  few  lines  of  brave  childish  prattle;  and  so  by  the  end  of 
the  first  scene  we  have  before  our  minds,  at  least,  all  the  important 
figures  of  the  play  except  Suetonius.  With  the  second  scene  we  pass 
to  the  Roman  camp  and  to  all  three  of  the  sub-plot  interests:  the  love 
of  Junius  for  one  of  the  daughters  of  Bonduca — soon  followed  by 
that  of  Petillius  for  the  other;  the  hunger  and  consequent  restlessness 
of  the  soldiers,  especially  of  Judas  and  his  band;  and  the  command 
which  leads  to  Poenius's  disobedience  and  downfall.  These  three,  with 
the  main  plot,  which  centres  around  Caratach  and  Bonduca,  constitute 
the  four  lines  of  action  for  the  play  and  with  the  close  of  this  scene 
they  are  all  ready  to  begin. 

There  is  no  sign  of  improper  haste  in  Fletcher's  opening  scenes, 
unless  the  frequency  with  which  the  chief  characters  introduce  them- 
selves is  so  construed.  The  desire  for  definite  activity  is,  however, 
abundantly  evident  and  even  these  chief  characters  are  rarely  allowed 
to  talk  very  long  without  doing  something  to  initiate  the  action.  In 
general  it  may  be  said  that  Fletcher  bestowed  little  time  on  the  actual 
introduction.  A  few  skilfully  contrived  comments  from  others  or  them- 
selves usually  give  us  the  cue  to  the  important  temperamental  trait  in 
each  of  the  chief  persons  and  its  relation  to  their  parts  in  the  plot. 
That  done,  they  are  launched  into  action  and  our  further  enlighten- 
ment is  left  to  the  loquacity  of  all  the  dramatis  personce — a  resource 
which  is  never  exhausted.  Everybody  talks  about  himself  and  about 
everybody  else,  about  his  doings  and  theirs,  and  thus  we  gradually 
acquire  a  detailed  knowledge  of  all.  Indeed,  it  can  never  be  charged 
against  Fletcher  that  he  leaves  us  in  the  dark  about  any  thing;  for 
such  revelations  as,  by  the  exigencies  of  the  plot,  cannot  become  known 
through  the  medium  of  conversation,  so  inevitably  take  the  form  of 
asides  and  soliloquies  that  we  weary  of  having  nothing  left  to  infer, 
and  this  too,  in  spite  of  the  f-act  that  Fletcher  is  not  entirely  ignorant  of 
the  art  of  combining  surprise  with  preparation. 

(3)     Surprise  versus  preparation. 

In  spite  of  all  Fletcher's  elaboration  of  explanation,  there  are 
many  of  tlie  larger  turns  of  the  plot  for  which  we  find  ourselves  totally 
unprepared.     Nor  is  it  greatly  to  be  wondered  at  that  the  writers  of 


92  BEAUMONT-FLETCHER    PLAYS. 

the  romantic  drama  have  frequently  been  guilty  of  the  fault  of  inade- 
quate causation,  since  the  element  of  surprise  is  so  large  a  contributor 
to  the  interest  of  their  plays. 

It  is  true  that  some  of  Fletcher^s  plays  do  not  come  strictly  under 
the  classification  of  the  romantic  drama  and  for  that  reason  would 
seem  to  need  other  grounds  of  explanation  for  their  delinquencies  in 
this  respect.  And  yet  they  are  all — whether  tragedies,  comedies  or 
tragi-comedies — conceived  in  the  romantic  spirit  and  governed  by  much 
the  same  laws  of  improbability  and  extravagance.  Fortunately  this 
is  somewhat  less  marked  in  the  tragedies  than  elsewhere,  for  in  them 
Fletcher  seems  to  have  made  a  deliberate  attempt  at  more  careful  con- 
nection and  motiving;  but  the  defects  of  his  method  were  too  funda- 
mental in  his  nature  to  be  overcome  even  in  his  most  serious  efforts. 
In  the  tragi-comedies  and  comedies  the  fault  easily  runs  riot;  for  the 
sudden  loves  which  seize  upon  their  heroes  and  heroines  at  any  time 
or  place,  militate  naturally  against  orderly  processes  of  development  in 
either  plot  or  character,  and  both  plot  and  characters  are  frequently 
bandied  about  from  one  remarkable  infatuation  to  another  in  a  way 
that  sets  all  probability  at  defiance.  Thus  in  The  Mad  Lover,  Memnon's 
sudden  love  for  Calls  gives  one  direction  to  the  play,  that  of  Syphax 
begins  another,  and  her  own  for  Polydore  still  another  which  is  quite 
contradictory  to  both  the  other  two.  Passions  so  instantaneous  and 
inexplicable  would  seem  to  admit  of  no  preparation,  and  yet  this  is  the 
type  which  Fletcher  almost  invariably  chose. 

It  is  true  that  a  subtle  analyst  of  character  would  have  such  sur- 
prises in  mind  from  the  beginning  and  would  so  endow  his  characters 
temperamentally  and  so  shape  the  influences  brought  to  bear  upon  them 
as  to  make  even  their  most  violent  changes  logically  explicable,  at 
least  in  the  light  of  retrospection.  Shakspere  is  a  consummate  master 
here,  for  however  much  he  may  surprise  us  at  the  moment,  he  rarely,  if 
ever,  really  outrages  our  sense  of  the  possible.  He  sees  straight  to  the 
centre  of  human  nature  and  knows  how  to  reconcile  all  its  apparent 
contradictions  by  his  view  of  its  invisible  workings.  Fletcher,  how- 
ever, has  none  of  this  insight  or  power.  His  gaze  stops  on  the  surface 
and  so  he  touches  only  the  high- water  maiks  of  character  and  does  not 
even  look  to  the  less  obvious  traits  and  tendencies.  It  is  inevitable  there- 
fore that  he  should  often  bring  us  face  to  face  with  surprises  of  situa- 
tion or  of  character  to  which  our  reason  refuses  to  be  reconciled. 

It  should  be  remembered,  however,  that  apart  from  his  natural 
limitations  Fletcher  never  set  himself  the   goal   of   careful   dramatic 


TECHNIQUE.  »3 

preparation  but  proceeded  intentionally  by  the  law  of  surprise.  Here, 
as  elsewhere,  he  acted  upon  his  instinct  for  stagecraft,  and  having 
determined  that  surprises  were  more  immediately  effective  than  a 
gradual  development,  he  adjusted  his  plays  completely  to  that  standard. 
In  that  way  it  became  the  test  of  his  skill,  not  to  construct  a  logical 
sequence  of  events  but  to  lead  up  to  a  denouement  that  would  completely 
reverse  all  expectation.  Such  care  as  he  took  to  establish  a  belief  was 
apt  to  be  expended  with  the  aim  of  heightening  the  force  of  the  sur- 
prise when  the  belief  was  overthrown:  for  he  reckoned  the  result 
doubly  effective  if,  at  the  proper  dramatic  moment,  he  could  defy  all 
probability  and  present  a  situation  entirely  unforeseen.  It  would  be 
idle,  of  course,  to  attempt  a  justification  of  such  a  method  on  serious 
artistic  grounds,  but  the  probability  is  strong  that  it  contributed  to  the 
success  of  the  acted  play.  Once  more  we  see  the  superficial  student  of 
life  proving  himself  the  supreme  master  of  stagecraft. 

It  should  be  noted  also  that,  in  spite  of  Fletcher's  failure  to  pre- 
pare for  the  larger  issues  of  his  plays,  it  is  rarely  the  case  that  he  does 
not  make  the  smaller  and  more  obviously  mechanical  connections 
smoothly,  not  only  in  the  earlier  processes  of  introduction,  but  in  the 
linking  of  scene  to  scene.  The  same  instinct  which  keeps  his  various 
groups  in  some  sort  of  touch  with  each  other  looks  to  a  certain  external 
coherence  in  the  forward  movement  of  the  play.  Aside  from  the  larger 
surprises,  one  scene  paves  the  way  for  another  and  the  action  moves 
along  without  friction.  Indeed,  in  censuring  Fletcher  for  grave  and 
evident  faults  we  are  apt  to  overlook  the  ease  of  his  general  method — an 
ease,  however,  which  is  never  to  be  understood  as  including  a  delicate 
finish  of  details,  but  merely  as  the  natural  outcome  of  his  gift  for 
dramatic  construction. 

(4)     The  closing  scene. 

It  is  hardly  to  be  wondered  at,  in  view  of  Fletcher's  aims,  that 
however  much  this  scene  may  fail  in  the  strong  elements  of  the  dra- 
matic, it  is  never  deficient  in  the  spectacular.  Indeed,  although  it 
seems  very  important  to  Fletcher  to  diffuse  activity  and  excitement 
throughout  his  plays,  the  final  scene  is  invariably  the  one  towards 
which  all  his  best  resources  tend.  Disguises  are  then  stripped  off; 
usurped  kingdoms  restored ;  lost  husbands,  wives,  and  children  brought 
back;  wrong  doers  are  exposed,  repent  and  are  forgiven;  virtue  re- 
ceives its  reward;  and  love  its  consummation — in  fact,  all  available 
conventions  are  put  into  active  use,  as  many  as  are  practicable  are  com- 


94  BEAUMONT-FLETCHEE    PLAYS. 

bined  in  a  single  play,  and  each  is  used  to  the  greatest  advantage  for 
immediate  effect. 

One  gets  the  impression,  however,  that  apart  from  his  love  of  the 
spectacular  and  his  fondness  for  creating  surprises,  Fletcher's  eagerness 
to  finish  his  play  was  also  at  work  in  this  final  massing  of  wonders.  The 
impression  is  re-inforced,  too,  by  Langbaine's  account'  of  his  hasty 
method  of  completing  a  play;  so  it  would  seem  a  safe  inference  that 
he  initiated  the  lines  of  his  action  somewhat  carefully,  but  that  weary- 
ing in  his  labor  he  brought  them  all  together,  dealt  out  to  each 
character  or  situation  tl^o  convention  best  suited  to  its  needs,  heightened 
all  effects  indiscriminately  and  brought  the  play  to  an  end. 

(5)     The   element  of  conflict. 

If  we  accept  Freytag's  definition  of  dramatic  action' — using  drama, 
however,  in  the  single  sense  of  tragedy,  since  Freytag's  conception 
really  includes  only  that  of  "a  grand  and  passionately  moved  soul 
striving  to  express  itself  in  action,"  and  if,  as  he  maintains,  the 
supreme  duty  of  the  dramatist  is  to  portray  "the  effect  of  some  hap- 
pening upon  a  human  soul,'  it  is  easily  apparent  that  Fletcher  had  no 
genuine  tragedies  and  failed  entirely  in  his  real  mission.  Nor  can 
Miss  Woodbridge's*  tests  be  applied  with  greater  success,  since  she 
declares  the  only  truly  tragic  figure  to  be  "a  strong  but  imperfect  indi- 
viduality carrying  on  a  losing  struggle  with  the  overpowering  forces 
of  life,"  and  calls  that  figure  the  most  tragic  who  unites  in  his  own 
soul  the  opposing  forces  in  the  struggle.'^  It  is  evident  that  Fletcher 
has  no  character  within  the  entire  range  of  his  plays  who  can  lay 
claim  to  this  title  or  interest.  Freytag  and  Miss  Woodbridge,  to  be 
sure,  are  both  narrow  in  their  views  as  to  what  is  genuinely  dramatic, 
for  their  definitions  not  only  shut  out  all  but  tragedy  but  even  exclude 
some  good  plays  of  that  class.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  true  that  most 
of  the  greatest  tragedies  have  involved  deep  spiritual  conflict  in  the 


1 


»"A8  to  his  failing  in  the  two  last  acts  (a  fault  Cicero  sometimes  alludes  to 
and  blames  in  an  Idle  poet)  it's  more  to  be  imputed  to  his  laziness  than  his  want 
of  Judgment.  I  have  either  read  or  been  Inform'd  (I  know  not  well  whether)  that 
'twas  generally  Mr.  Fletcher's  practice  after  he  had  finished  three  acts  of  a  play  to 
show  them  to  the  actors  and  when  they  had  agreed  on  terms  he  huddled  up  the  two 
last  without  that  care  that  behooved  him."  An  Account  of  EngliJih  Dramatick  Poets, 
p.  144. 

■Die  Teohnik  des  Dramas,  Auf.  1876,  S.  18.  "Ein  groszartig  und  leidenschaftllch 
b«wegtes  Innere,  welches  danach  ringt,  sich  in  die  That  uragesetzen." 

•Ibid.,  S.  16.  "Nicht  die  Darstellung  einer  Begebenheft  an  sich,  sondern  ihres 
Reflexe  auf  die  Menschenseele   ist  Aufgabe  der  dramatischen  Kunst." 

*The  Drama,  Its  Law  and  Technique,  p.  36. 

•Ibid.,  p.  39. 


I 


TECHNIQUE.  95 

breast  of  the  hero  and  so  it  is  hardly  amiss  to  measure  Fletcher  by 
such  a  standard. 

It  is  obvious  enough  that  Fletcher's  whole  moral  endowment  was 
against  the  portrayal  of  the  tragic  life.  He  lacked  the  seriousness  and 
spiritual  poise  which  could  conceive  and  work  out  a  deep  inner  ex- 
perience, moving  in  response  to  fundamental  laws;  for  his  o^ii  out- 
look upon  life  was  essentially  unmoral  and  he  substituted  impulse  for 
the  higher  and  nobler  motives.  Granting  his  characters  no  general 
sense  of  moral  obligation,  he  could  make  no  exactions  of  them  on  the 
basis  of  their  convictions  of  right  and  so  he  laid  no  foundations  for 
a  conflict  of  duty  and  desire.  To  him  life  was  no  struggle  and  he 
naturally  could  not  project  into  his  characters  a  world  view  and  a 
moral  force  of  which  he  himself  was  incapable.  This  shallowness  of 
his  own  nature,  which  shut  him  off  from  the  comprehension  of  spiritual 
mysteries,  conspired  easily  then  with  his  dramatic  theory  to  make  even 
his  tragedies  rather  a  mass  of  happenings  than,  in  any  real  sense, 
studies  of  the  soul. 

Bonduca  furnishes  an  illustration  of  this  defect;  Caratach,  its 
leading  figure,  is  a  well  poised,  well  mannered  gentleman  whom  nothing 
seriously  disturbs.  Indeed,  if  we  except  a  certain  highly  developed 
tendency  on  his  part  to  berate  Bonduca  and  her  daughters,  he  shows 
at  all  times  a  faultlessness  of  behavior  and  a  sublimity  of  self-command 
that  preclude  all  idea  of  conflict  and  arouse  a  certain  impatience  in 
the  reader.  There  is  real  dignity  in  the  fundamental  conception  of  his 
character,  but  none  of  the  power  which  comes  with  the  subduing  of  evil, 
for  he  apparently  had  no  impulses  but  those  born  of  unquestioning 
nobility.  The  excessive  military  courtesy,  too,  which  Fletcher  metes 
out  to  his  generals  falls  to  Caratach  in  double  measure,  and  however 
commendable  it  may  be  on  high  moral  grounds  palls  upon  us  distinctly 
as  it  accumulates  throughout  the  play.  When,  at  the  last,  it  depriyee 
us  of  the  proper  tragic  catastrophe  and  sends  Caratach  off  in  highly 
optimistic  mood  to  grace  the  triumph  of  his  hospitable  enemy  Sueto- 
nius we  cannot  resist  the  conviction  that  if  he  had  been  a  Briton  of  the 
proper  spirit,  he  would  have  died  fighting,  or  else  have  followed  the 
example  of  Bonduca  in  taking  his  own  life,  rather  than  submit  to 
the  ignominy  of  capture. 

The  same  ineffectiveness  is  seen  in  Armusia,  who  certainly  shows 
enough  of  Fletcher's  marks  to  be  taken  as  his  own,  and  whom  Stiefel, 
in  his  study  of  the  sources  of  The  Island  Princess,  calls  the  noblest 


96  BEAUMONT-FLETCHER    PLAYS. 

of  all  Fletcher's  heroes,  the  one  knight  **sans  peur  et  sans  reproche."* 
It  is  undeniable  that  Armusia  is  free  from  all  vices  and  lacks  even 
Caratach's  habit  of  scolding.  He  combines  in  himself,  too,  the  virtues 
of  bravery,  chastity,  piety,  and  faithfulness,  if  need  be  even  unto  death, 
but  he  fails  utterly  to  move  us,  because,  like  Caratach,  he  is  lifted  out 
of  the  stress  of  real  temptation  and  so  lacks  one  of  the  strongest 
humanizing  touches.  Both  he  and  Caratach  sin  against  the  sound 
Aristotelian  canon^  which  provides  that  the  hero  shall  not  be  beyond 
the  reach  of  sympathy  either  in  goodness  or  in  evil. 

It  is  a  part  of  the  same  weakness  that  Fletcher  cannot  portray 
a  villain  without  putting  him  beyond  the  pale  of  our  pity.  He  cares 
little  for  Aristotle's  rule  which  calls  for  a  certain  compassion  for  the 
evil  doer,  to  be  brought  about  by  some  softening  light  on  his  character 
or  some  hint  of  injustice  inflicted  upon  him.  He  gives  us  villains  of 
the  Richard  III  type,  in  that  they  never  waver  and  never  repent — 
except  in  those  absurdly  instantaneous  conversions  for  which  there  is  no 
justification. 

Nor  does  the  villainy  of  such  figures  of  his  even  afford  us  the 
gratification  of  an  interesting  psychological  study  as  is  markedly  the 
case  with  Richard  III,  where  we  gradually  come  to  know  the  secret 
windings  of  his  crafty  nature.  Fletcher's  villains,  indeed,  have  no 
secret  windings  to  their  natures,  but  rather  a  plain  desire  for  animal 
enjoyment  and  no  great  subtlety  in  devising  ways  to  gratify  it.  More- 
over, they  have  no  gift  for  introspection,  and  when  they  take  us  into 
their  confidence  it  is  not  to  throw  light  on  a  complicated  and  highly 
developed  individuality  but  only  to  show  in  advance  some  of  the  various 
turns  of  the  plot  in  which  they  are  involved.  They  do  not,  to  any 
degree,  rationalize  their  wickedness  for  us  by  such  delicate  mental 
processes  as  Richard  often  employs  in  his  self-communings.  Their 
badness  is,  in  the  larger  sense,  unmotived  and  thus  uninteresting.  They 
stand  out  as  unrelievedly  base  and  bestial,  and  because  they  show  no 
capacity  for  being  stirred  by  the  higher  impulses — ^whether  of  a  moral 
or  an  intellectual  sort — ^they  seem  to  us  not  worth  while,  either  as 
human  beings  or  as  artistic  creations.  This  is  true  of  Borosky  in 
The  Loyal  Subject,  Frederick  and  Sorano  in  A  Wife  for  a  Month, 
the  Governor  of  Temata  in  The  Island  Princess,  and,  to  a  less  marked 
extent,  of  Valentinian  in  the  play  of  that  name.  In  the  latter  char- 
acter Fletcher  indeed  makes  some  attempt  at  palliation,  especially  in 

Weber  die  Quelle  von  J.  Fletctier'a  Island  Princeis.     Herrlg's  Archlr,  103,  p.  290. 

^Poetics  of  Aristotle,  Butcher  ed.,  1808,  p.  65. 


TECHNIQUE.  97 

the  earlier  scenes  with  Aecius;  in  his  momentary  self-reproach  before 
his  crime;  in  his  tenderness  to  his  wife  in  his  last  moments;  and  in 
hers  towards  him  throughout  the  play.  The  effort,  however,  is  not 
successful,  for  the  aim  at  relief  is  inartistically  obvious  and  beyond  a 
certain  hesitancy  in  Valentinian  which  arises  chiefly  from  weakness  of 
will,  offers  no  argument  against  the  impression  of  him  which  remains 
with  us,  as  a  nature  virtually  undiluted  in  its  evil.  There  is  no  real 
conflict  of  moral  forces. 

Poenius  in  Bonduca  is,  on  the  whole,  Fletcher's  most  successful 
attempt  at  the  delineation  of  inward  struggle.  Even  in  him,  however, 
we  have  rather  a  succession  than  a  conflict  of  emotions.  Pride  leads  to 
disobedience,  then  patriotism  displaces  pride  and  induces  shame,  despair, 
and  suicide.  The  large  lines  of  spiritual  experience  are  well  laid  down 
and  the  shifting  of  moods  is  in  the  natural  order;  but  the  subtle 
interplay  of  impulses  is  lacking  from  first  to  last;  for  the  soul  sur- 
renders itself  to  each  as  it  comes.  This  may  in  some  temperaments 
be  natural,  but  it  misses  the  prime  essential  of  the  genuinely  tragic, 
because  there  is  no  real  struggle. 

Dryden  has  summed  up  the  defects  of  Fletcher's  methods  of 
characterization  in  blaming  the  poet  who  is  "more  in  pain  to  tell  you  what 
has  happened  to  a  man  than  what  he  was.'^^  For  him  very  tangible 
conflicts  go  on — the  opposition  of  one  corporeal  man  to  another;  but 
the  clash  of  the  secret  souls  or  the  war  of  forces  in  the  same  soul  are 
species  of  battle  never  dreamed  of  in  the  world  which  he  builds  about 
his  plays. 

(5)     Comic  complication. 

In  comedy  the  spiritual  limitation  of  Fletcher's  is,  of  course,  far 
less  evident ;  for  although  it  is  permitted  to  infuse  a  certain  seriousness 
into  such  plays,  it  is  not  required.  Comedy,  legitimizes,  too,  the  element 
of  chance,  which  is  fully  in  keeping  with  Fletcher's  slight  philosophy 
of  life,  and  is  satisfied  with  the  less  strenuous  complications  which  were 
by  no  means  beyond  his  grasp.  His  mind  was  of  that  supple  and 
elastic  variety  which  moves  easily  in  the  liglitor  grooves  of  thought 
and  feeling,  and  he  had  a  cleverness  in  contriving  comic  situations 
which  came  nearer  here  than  elsewhere  to  serving  the  purpose  of 
originality.  With  him  the  organizing  motive  is  not  the  solution  of  any 
mysterious  intrigue  or  the  steady  accumulation  even  of  comic  retribu- 
tion upon  a  victim,  but  the  interplay  of  two  humorously  conceived 

^Preface  to  Troilua  and  Cressida,  Oi-ounds  for  Critioism  in  Tragedy.     Scott-Salnts- 
bury  ed.,  VI,  p.  270. 


98 


BEAUMONT-FLETCHER    PLAYS. 


groups  on  the  principle  of  action  and  re-action.  The  moment  of  sus- 
pense comes  with  every  trick  of  the  gay  intrigues,  and  the  constant 
reversal  of  fortune  keeps  expectation  busy.  The  complication  is  thus 
rather  linked  than  cumulative  and  the  interest  is  distributed  through- 
out the  play.  An  examination  into  the  complications  of  a  few  of  the 
comedies  may  serve  to  illustrate  the  point. 


THE  WOMAN'S  PRIZE. 
(Time — The  wedding  day  of  Petruchio  and  Maria,  and  afterwards.) 


Main  Plot. 


Petruchio 


Has    reputation    for    tyrannizing 
over  his  former  wife. 


Driven  to  self-defense,  adopts 
these  measures  to  arouse  Maria's 
interest  and  affection: — III,  2. 

1 — Pretends  illness.    Ill,  4. 


Maria 
Determines  to  avoid  future  trouble 
by  subduing  her  husband  at  once 
and  adopts  the  following  meas- 
ures:— I,  2. 

1 — Eefuses  to  obey  his  summons, 
barricades  her  apartments 
and  declares  herself  in  a  state 
of  siege;  treats  with  Petru- 
chio from  a  window,  gains 
promise  of  privileges  as  to 
money,  guests,  dress,  etc.; 
siege  is  raised.    I,  3,  II,  6. 

2 — Makes  reckless  expenditures 
and  continues  to  flout  Pe- 
truchio's  authority.     Ill,  2. 


Accepts  his  pretense  as  real,  calls 
his  disease  infectious  and  hur- 
ries all  tlie  household  away,  leav- 
ing him  in  strict  confinement, 
with  the  watch  in  attendance. 
Ill,  4. 


\ 


TECHNIQUE. 


99 


Frightens  the  watch  into  flight, 
bursts  open  the  door  and  re- 
leases himself,  vowing  new  ven- 
geance.    Ill,  4. 

2 — Pretends  that  he  will  travel. 
IV,  5. 


k 


Pretense  abandoned  in  disgust  and 
a  new  one  resolved  on.    V,  2. 

3 — Pretends  death  and  has  himself 
brought  before  Maria  in  a  coffin 
while  all  reproach  her  for  his 
death.    V,  4. 


Rises  from  the  coffin  with  angry 
reproaches  but  soon  confesses 
himself  fairly  outwitted  and 
cured  of  his  hectoring  tenden- 
cies.   V,  4. 


Receives  the  news  joyfully  and 
threatens  a  gay  life  during  Pe- 
truchio's  absence.    IV,  5. 


Pretends  to  weep,  but  explains  that 
all  her  grief  is  for  "his  poor,  un- 
manly, wretched,  foolish  life.'' 
V,4. 


Declares  herself  satisfied  with  his 
state  of  mind  and  ready  to  prove 
herself  an  obedient  wife.    V,  4. 


Reconciliation.    V.  4. 


100 


BEAUMONT-FLETCHER    PLAYS. 


THE  ^VILD  GOOSE  CHASE. 


(1)     Main  Plot. 


Oriana 


Loves  the  scornful  Mirabel  and 
takes  these  means  to  entrap  him. 

1 — Her  brother  disguises  himself 
as  a  lord  of  Savoy  come  to 
8ue  for  her  hand.  He  at- 
tacks Mirabel's  conduct  in 
the  latter's  hearing,  but 
Oriana  defends  it.    Ill,  1. 


2 — Pretends  madness  as  the  result 
of  Mirabel's  treatment  and 
raves  prettily  before  him, 
while  all  reproach  him.  IV,  3. 


3 — Pretends  to  be  the  sister  of  a 
former  beneficiary  of  Mira- 
bel's and  the  bearer  of  a  leg- 
acy left  him  by  her  brother. 
V,  1,  3,  4,  5,  6. 


Mirabel 


Is  pleased  at  her  defense  of  him 
and  determines  that  the  lord 
from  Savoy  shall  not  have  her, 
but  when  Oriana's  trick  is  dis- 
covered mocks  her  in  a  merry 
song.     Ill,  1. 


Blames  himself  greatly  and  makes 
her  an  offer  of  marriage.  Dis- 
covers her  trick  again  and  again 
withdraws.     IV,  3. 


Does  not  recognize  her,  consents 
to  marry  the  stranger,  again  dis- 
covers the  trick,  but  this  time 
confesses  himself  vanquished  and 
ready  for  marital  bonds.    V,  6. 


TECHNIQUE.  101 

(2)     Sub-Plot. 

Ldllia  Bianca  and  Rosalura,  merry  maidens  and  friends  to  Oriana, 
are  l*ved  by  the  whimsical  friends  of  Mirabel,  Pinac  and  Belleur  and 
though  returning  the  affection  severally  bestowed,  determine  to  lead  their 
lovers  a  merry  dance  before  yielding. 


(a) 


Lillia  Bianca. 
Entertains    Pinac   in    her    apart- 
ments and  convinces  him  that 
his  wooing  will  need  all  his  wit. 
II,  2. 


Pretends  great  grief  and  goes  to 
his  house  as  if  to  lament,  but 
there  exposes  his  trick  and 
proves  his  countess  to  be  a 
courtesan  of  the  place.     IV,  1. 


Pinac 


Pretends  to  be  visited  by  an  En- 
glish countess,  thinking  to  arouse 
Lillians  jealousy.    Ill,  1. 


(i) 

Rosalura  Belleur 

M'eeting  Belleur  in  the  garden, 
pretends  to  think  him  a  vagrant 
and  offends  him  deeply.  II,  3. 
Is  reinforced  by  Lillia  and  a 
posse  of  women  who  put  Bel- 
leur to  flight.     IV,  2. 

Meditates  constantly  on  revenge 
and  finally  resorts  to  taunts  and 
reproaches  amounting  to  perse- 
cution.   IV,  2. 

General  reconciliation  in  the  last  scene  brought  about  by  the  clever 
insistence  of  the  maidens.    V,  6. 


102 


BEAUMONT-FLETCHER    PLAYS. 


RULE  A  WIFE  AND  HAVE  A  WIFE. 


(1)     Main  Plot. 


Margarita 

A  gay  young  heiress  who,  wishing 
the  support  of  a  husband's  name 
without  having  to  respect  his 
authority,  decides  to  marry. 


Orders  Leon  to  attend  on  her  lover 
the  Duke  of  Medina  and  other 
guests.     Ill,  1. 


Speaks  roughly  to  him  before  her 
guests.     Ill,  5. 


Urges  excuses  but  to  no  avail.     IV, 

3. 
Pretends   (to  vex  Leon)    that  the 

house  is  not  hers.     IV,  3. 


Leon 


A    clever    low-born    soldier     who 
would   gain  a  fortune  and  be- 
come master  of  a  home.     This 
ambition  entails  two  sets  of  in- 
trigues. 
1 — Intrigues  for  winning  Marga- 
rita. 
a — Presents  himself  before  her 
as  a  suitor — professes  ab- 
ject  humility   and   is   ac- 
cepted —  immediate    mar- 
riage decided  upon.    II,  3. 


b — Obeys  but  gives  warning  of 
future  resistance.     Ill,  1. 


2 — Measures  for  subduing  her. 
a — Declares   himself   master    in 

his  own  house.     Ill,  5. 
b — Receives  appointment  in  the 
army    and    declares    that 
Margarita    shall    go   with 
him  to  war.     IV,  3. 


c — Declares  that  they  will  then 
move  to  another.     IV,  S. 


TECHNIQUE 


103 


Confesses  her  trick  to  Leon  and 
gets  permission  to  delay  her  jour- 
ney.    IV,  3. 


Professes  full  obedience  to  Leon 
and  gets  much  freedom  in  re- 
turn. Receives  the  duke  of  Me- 
dina into  her  house  by  a  trick. 
V,3. 


Kneels  for  forgiveness,  promising 
all  obedience  for  the  future.  V, 
3. 

I  Humbles  both  the  Duke  and  Caco- 
fogo.     V,  6. 


d — Gains  promise  from  Mar- 
garita to  humiliate  her 
lover  Cacofogo.     V,  1. 


e — Tells  her  that  her  deception 
is  discovered  and  will  be 
frustrated.     V,  3. 


(2)     Sub-Plot. 


1  Estafania 

fcrhe  maid  of  Margarita,  pretends 
1  in  her  mistress'  absence,  that  the 
I  house  is  her  own  and  so  deceives 
Perez  into  marrying  her.  I,  1, 
3,  6. 

Margarita  arriving  at  home,  Esta- 
fania beguiles  Perez  away  on  the 
plea  of  leaving  the  house  to  a 
cousin.     II,  4. 

•jearning  her  husband's  poverty, 
she  rifles  his  trunk  and  deserts 
him.     Ill,  4. 


Perez 

A  penniless  soldier,  who,  dazzled 
by  the  prospect  of  gaining  a  for- 
tune himself,  pretends  wealth  to 
gain  the  lady's  consent.  I,  1, 
3,  6. 


Discovers  from  two  sources  that 
Estefania  has  deceived  him  and 
resolves  to  be  revenged  upon  her. 
Ill,  4,  5. 


104 


BEAUMONT-FLETCHER    PLAYS. 


They  meet,  quarrel  and  are  recon- 
ciled, Perez  being  persuaded 
that  Estafania  has  been  slan- 
dered to  him.   lY,  1. 

Perez  goes  to  claim  Margarita's 
house,  but  finds  himself  to  have 
been  deceived  a  second  time  by 
Estafania — is  fired  with  desire 
for  vengeance  again.     IV,  3. 

They  meet — ^he  would  do  her  violence  at  first,  but  is  so  won  to 
admiration  by  her  cleverness  that  he  finally  confesses  himself  glad  to  sur- 
render to  her — complete  reconciliation  follows.    V,  4,  5. 

The  method  at  work  in  these  plays  is  apparent  and  is  Fletcher's 
characteristic  one  in  comedy.  The  ball  of  mischief  flies  back  and  forth 
and  the  spirit  of  fun  presides  over  all.  The  author's  lightness  of  touch 
is  at  its  best  and  his  ingenuity  almost  invariably  works  out  pleaaing 
turns  of  the  plot.     Here,  at  least,  material  and  method  are  at  oae. 


VIII. 
THE  SPIRIT  OF  THE  COMEDIES. 

From  every  point  of  view  it  is  clear  that  Fletcher's  muse  was  the 
comic;  for  whenever  he  touches  the  more  serious  aspects  of  life  he  is 
weighed  in  the  balances  only  to  be  found  wanting.  In  neither  tragedy 
nor  tragi-comedy  were  his  movements  free,  although  he  was  drawn  to 
them  by  their  spectacular  possibilities  and  knew  how  to  produce  popular 
plays  of  both  types  by  diverting  interest  from  his  weaknesses  to  his 
points  of  strength.  It  is  noticeable,  too,  that  when  the  pressure  of 
Beaumont's  influence  was  removed,  the  comedies  began  to  come  from 
Fletcher's  pen  with  a  steady  frequency,  and  that  the  tragedies  and  tragi- 
comedies in  which  Beaumont  collaborated  are  held  the  greatest  of  all  their 
works,  while  the  later  plays  of  these  classes  in  which  Fletcher  worked 
alone  are,  in  the  main,  greatly  inferior  to  his  productions  in  the  lighter 
vein. 

From  the  point  of  view  of  the  reader  the  tragi-comedies  are  the 
least  pleasing  and  convincing  of  all  Fletcher's  separate  group ;  for  while 
in  the  tragedies  he  keeps  down  his  more  violent  tendencies  to  improb- 
ability and  in  the  comedies  justifies  his  extravagance  by  its  results,  he 
posits  in  the  tragi-comedies  a  world  at  least  half  serious  and  then 
neglects  the  obligations,  thus  incurred,  to  solve  its  problems  reasonably. 
From  this  there  results  in  the  mind  of  his  readers  a  certain  resentment, 
as  if  their  credulity  had  been  tampered  with,  while  at  the  same  time 
a  definite  impression  is  received  of  the  author's  inadequacy  for  his  task. 

In  the  comedies,  however,  this  is  far  from  being  the  case;  for  al- 
though he  hurries  us  through  a  maze  of  highly  improbable  happenings, 
he  generates  his  atmosphere  as  he  goes,  and  the  very  rapidity  of  his 
movement  begets  a  breeziness  and  exhilaration  that  sweep  us  unques- 
tioningly  along  even  into  the  midst  of  the  marvellous  array  of  co- 
incidences which  he  marshals  at  the  close.  He  takes  little  pains  to 
reconcile  us  to  any  separate  improbability,  but  choosing  a  world  of 
extravagance,  he  undertakes  to  please  rather  by  the  audacity  of  his 
imaginings  than  by  any  concession  to  a  sober  common  sense.  Having 
the  art  to  impose  his  mood  upon  us,  he  captivates  by  his  very  excesses. 

105 


106  BEAUMONT-FLETCHEE    PLAYS. 

It  is  precisely  this  mood  of  Fletcher's  and  his  power  to  project  it 
into  others  that  explain  his  gift  for  comedy ;  for  it  must  be  granted  that 
even  in  this  realm  he  had  his  limitations.  He  lacked  entirely  the  ex- 
quisite subtlety  which  Meredith'  demands  in  the  comic  spirit  and  was 
prevented  from  the  perception  of  the  deeper  ironies  that  constitute 
truest  comedy  by  the  same  want  of  inner  vision  which  denied  him  a 
grasp  on  the  genuinely  tragic.  Granting,  however,  that  he  failed  in 
both  these  points,  it  still  remains  true  that  he  had  for  the  comedy  of  the 
lighter  vein  an  instinct  and  a  facility  which  Beaumont  did  not,  at  any 
rate,  prove  himself  to  possess,-  and  which  made  Fletcher  a  literary  dic- 
tator in  this  especial  field. 

In  the  spirit  and  attitude  of  his  comedies  Fletcher  showed  him- 
self equally  remote  from  Shakspere  and  from  Ben  Jonson;  for  he  had 
none  of  the  fine  and  unobtrusive  moral  sense  of  the  one  or  the  delib- 
erate didacticism  of  the  other.  It  has  been  pointed  out  by  Miss  Wood- 
bridge^  that  Jonson,  with  all  his  fame  as  the  censor  of  his  age,  is  not 
always,  in  the  morals  of  his  plays,  a  safe  guide,  since  his  awards  go  far 
more  uniformly  to  the  clever  than  to  the  good.  That  claim,  however, 
even  if  granted,  does  not  affect  the  facts  that  his  attitude  was  severely 
judicial  and  that  his  zeal  for  his  mission  as  the  corrector  of  the  follies 
of  his  age  was  so  great  that  he  habitually  used  the  cynical,  fault-finding 
tone. 

With  such  a  mood  as  Jonson's  Fletcher  had  no  sort  of  sympathy. 
He  assumed  no  responsibility  for  the  world's  behavior  or  for  that  of 
his  own  age.  His  business,  as  he  conceived  it,  was  to  present  life,  not 
to  correct  it,  and  he  was  too  much  a  man  of  his  time  and  of  the  gay 
world  at  large  to  take  its  foibles  seriously.  That  he  was  not  distinctly 
conscious  of  them  is  hard  to  believe;  for  his  eye  was  keen  enough  in  the 
detection  of  such  surface  values  and  they  came  directly  under  his  ob- 
servation. That  he  did  not  array  himself  against  them  is  in  every  way 
characteristic  of  the  hedonism  and  moral  inertia  of  his  nature.  It  has 
been  so  much  the  fashion  to  talk  of  the  subserviency  of  Beaumont  and 
Fletcher  to  their  age  that  the  delicate  thrusts  in  which  their  plays  abound 
have  usually  been  passed  over  without  comment;  and  indeed  the  light 
hearted  way  in  which  they  are  given  is  apt  to  prevent  their  detection. 
Beaumont's  tone  in  The  Knight  of  the  Burning  Pestle,  as  well  as  cer- 

^Etsay  on  Comedy,  pp.  83-84. 

=In  The  Knight  of  the  Burning  Pestle,  Beaumont  comes  far  nearer  to  Meredith's 
conception  of  eoraedy  than  Flefcher  does  In  any  of  the  comedies  of  his  especial  gr«np. 
^Studies  in  Jonson's  Comedies,  pp.  28-29. 


THE    SPIKIT    OF    COMEDIES.  107 

tain  touches  of  his  in  The  Scornful  Lady  and  The  Woman  Hater,  show 
that  when  he  desired  he  could  put  both  boldness  and  vigor  into  his 
presentation  of  the  weaknesses  of  his  time.  Fletcher,  however,  was  a  nat- 
ural euphemist  and  shrank  from  the  disagreeably  pungent  in  both  his 
morals  and  his  art.  Langbaine  was  one  of  the  earlier  critics  to  note  this 
tendency  in  Fletcher  and  declared  that  his  raillery  was  "so  drest  that  it 
rather  pleased  than  disgusted,  the  modest  portion  of  his  audience;"^  while 
Baker  in  A  Companion  to  the  Play-House  still  further  emphasizes 
the  idea  in  his  statement  that  Fletcher's  "wit  and  raillery  were  extremely 
keen  and  poignant,  yet  they  were,  at  the  same  time,  so  perfectly  genteel 
that  they  used  rather  to  please  than  disgust  the  very  persons  on  whom 
they  seemed  to  reflect."'  One  does  not  feel,  however,  that  the  satire  is 
ever  with  Fletcher  an  end  in  itself,  but  that  it  comes  as  an  incidental 
touch  of  humor  or  as  a  mere  ripple  on  the  plot.  For  that  reason  it 
seems  hardly  accurate  to  apply  the  terms  "keen  and  poignant"  to  it. 
What  he  aimed  at  was  rather  a  good-humored  presentation  of  popular 
faults  than  a  castigation  of  them,  and  there  is  no  certain  fibre  of  moral 
earnestness  to  be  detected  anywhere  in  his  utterances. 

Indeed,  a  great  many,  if  not  all,  of  his  satiric  touches  follow  the 
conventional  lines  of  his  day  and  are  clearly  used  for  comic  effect.  The 
doctor  with  his  quackery  is  almost  a  constant  figure^  in  his  plays,  but 
the  quackery  is  always  incidental  and  for  the  purpose  of  exciting  laugh- 
ter over  the  persecutions  to  which  he  subjects  his  patient.  This  con- 
trasts strongly  with  Jonson's  treatment  of  a  similar  theme  in  The  Al- 
chemist, where  the  aim  is  primarily  to  expose  a  crying  evil.  The  jealous 
husband,*  the  lawyer,^  the  miser,^  the  pedant,'^  the  learned  woman^  and 
various  other  figures  passed  on  from  classical  or  medieval  sources,  all 
receive  attention  at  Fletcher's  hands  and  are  all  made  to  serve  his  gen- 
eral dramatic  purpose.  Such  a  hit  as  he  gives  at  the  parson  in  The 
Woman's  Prize,  where  he  makes  Jacques  say 

"Twenty  to  one  you'll  find  him  at  the  Bush,  there's  the  best  ale."  Ill,  4. 
is  typical  of  his  satiric  method. 

^An  Account  of  English  DramaticJc  Poets,  I,  25. 

*BiograpMa  Dramatica.     See  vol.  II,  under  Beaumont. 

^Monsieur  Thomas,  II,  4,  III,  1  ;  7"he  Humorous  Lieutenant,  III,  5  ;  The  Woman's 
Prize,  III,  4;  The  Mad  Lover,  III,  2;  VaUntinian,  V,  2. 

*Lopez  in  Women  Pleased^  Leon  in  Ifule  a  Wife  and  Have  a  Wife,  and  Petruchio 
In  The  Woiyian's  Prize.     (Cf.  Bartolus  of  The  Spanish  Curate  In  group  III.) 

'^A  Wife  for  a  Month,  V,  3,  etc.  (See  also  The  Little  French  Lawyer,  The  Spanish 
Curate,  etc.,  of  group  III.) 

"Ijopez  in  Women  Pleased.     (Cf.  Algrife  in  The  Night  Walker  of  group  III.) 

"^Wit  Without  Money,  II,  4. 

^Women  Pleased,  IV,  1  ;  The  Wild  Goose  Chase,  II,  2  ;  TJie  Woman's  Prize,  III,  3. 


108  BEAUMONT-FLETCHER    PLAYS. 

He  has  thrusts  too  at  the  Puritans,  but  the  especial  foible  of  his 
age  which  calls  out  some  show  of  vigor  in  his  touch  is  the  mania  for 
travel  and  for  foreign  fashion.  Indeed,  the  theme  is  so  common  with 
him  that  one  almost  suspects  a  real  conviction  on  his  part,  although  that 
conviction  never  emerges  in  definite  form.  The  Wild  Goose  Chase 
might  almost  be  taken,  en  masse,  as  a  light  satire  on  foreign  travel, 
and  the  comic  plot  of  Monsieur  Thomas  has  constant  thrusts  of  a  sim- 
ilar sort.     Thus  Mirabel,  just  returned  from  Italy,  exclaims, 

"There's  nothing  good  or  handsome  bred  amongst  us.  Till  we  are  trav- 
elled and  live  abroad,  we  are  coxcombs."  1,  2. 

Later  De  Gard  rebukes  Mirabel  for  his  folly  by  saying, 

"Be  not  too  glorious  foolish,   sum   not  your  travels  up  with 
vanities."     II,  1. 

In  Monsieur  Thomas,  Launcelot  thus  introduces  to  Sebastian,  the 
father  of  Thomas,  his  son  lately  arrived  from  a  sojourn  in  Paris: — 

'  *  Your  son,  my  master, 

Or  Monsieur  Thomas  (for  so  his  travel  styles  him) 
********* 

Through  many  foreign  plots  that  virtue  meets  with 

And  dangers   (I  beseech  you  give  attention) 

la  at  the  last  arrived 

To  ask  your  (as  the  Frenchman  calls  it  sweetly) 

*  *  Benediction  de  jour  en  jour. '  * 

While  Sebastian  replies : — 

"Sirrah,  do  not  conjure  me  with  your  French  furies, 
Leave  me  your  rotten  language  and  tell  me  plainly 
And  quickly  sirrah,  lest  I  crack  your  French  crown 
What  your  good  master  means. "  I,  2. 

The  motive  is  equally  prominent  in  plays  of  Group  III,  notably 
in  The  Queen  of  Corinth,  where  Onos  has  grown  old  in  travelling  over 
the  world  with  his  tutor  and  has  gotten  for  all  his  pains  only  a  restless 
craving  for  motion  and  a  mind  shrivelled  for  lack  of  useful  activity.^ 


^Another  of  the  abuses  of  the  time  which  Fletcher  did  not  hesitate  to  set  forth 
plainly  was  the  immorality  of  the  court,  but  as  he  makes  no  very  conspicuous  mention 
of  it  In  the  comedies,  the  discussion  of  his  attitude  towards  it  Is  a  digression  here. 
There  is  hardly  a  king  in  his  group  of  plays  who  Is  not  the  creature  of  his  passions 
lying  In  wait  to  ensnare  a  virtuous  woman.  Valentinian,  The  Humorous  Lieutenant, 
The  Loyal  Subject  and  A  Wife  for  a  Month  are  instances  of  this.  The  exceptions  are 
In  The  Island  Princess  and  The  Mad  Lover,  although  In  both  of  these  the  king  is 
hardly  more  than  a  background  figure  and  so  Is  slightly  developed.  It  Is  true  that 
the  dramatic  possibilities  of  such  a  situation  naturally  appealed  to  Fletcher ;  at  the 
same  time  such  sentiments  as  are  found,  for  Instance,  In  The  Humorous  Lieutenant 
Intimate  his  recognition  of  unjustifiable  conditions  In  the  life  of  which  he  was,  to 
Bone  extent,  a  part. 

"She  studies  to  undo  the  court,  to  plant  here 
The  enemy  of  our  age,  chastity."   (IV,  1.) 


THE    SPIRIT    OF    COMEDIES.  "  109 

One  may  easily  gather  from  the  mildness  of  Fletcher's  satire  as 
well  as  from  the  general  tone  of  his  comedies  that  he  had  not  been  in- 
fluenced by  Sidney's  view  of  comedy  as  a  scornful  presentation  of  error.' 
He  sought  primarily  to  entertain  and  to  amuse  and  so,  as  a  rule,  laid 
hold  of  only  such  follies  as  were  laughable.  Besides  this  his  em- 
phasis is  so  little  on  his  characters  that  he  does  not  concern  himself  with 
either  their  virtues  or  their  vices  except  so  far  as  these  prove  directly 
contributory  to  the  interest  of  his  plots.  In  the  comedies  he  never  in- 
volves his  characters  in  issues  which  seem  to  him  seriously  moral,  and 
they  are  all  constructed  on  a  selective  principle  which  leaves  out  trouble- 
some scruples  or  pious  proclivities  and  makes  them  able  to  adjust  their 
morals  to  any  dramatic  necessity  which  may  arise.  Indeed,  they  are 
conscienceless  creatures,  guiltless  of  any  suspicion  of  moral  law. 

It  naturally  follows,  too,  that  in  his  comic  characters  Fletcher  did 
not  find  his  chief  interest  in  traits  that  were  repulsive  or  even  disagree- 
able. Whatever  may  be  said  of  the  blackness  of  the  villains  found  in 
his  tragedies  or  tragi-comedies,  such  a  comedy  character  as  Jonson's 
Volpone  would  have  been  for  him  a  psychological  and  artistic  impossi- 
bility, not  only  from  its  intensity,  but  because  Fletcher  himself  was  en- 
dowed  with  a  certain  type  of  aestheticism  upon  which  such  a  conception 
— 'however  moral  its  teaching — would  inevitably  have  jarred. 

Nor  did  he  seize  upon  anything  savoring  of  weakness  or  physical  de- 
fects as  affording  him  sources  of  amusement.  Some  exaggerated  tem- 
peramental bent  or  some  other  eccentricity  with  strong  comic  possibili- 
ties is  usually  his  starting  point  with  comedy  characters  and  his  atti- 
tude towards  them  is  invariably  good  natured  and  indulgent,  although 
he  generally  allows  them  to  pay  the  penalty  of  their  excesses  of  mood. 
Thus  "the  humorous  lieutenant"-  is  so  constituted  that  when  sickness 
comes  upon  him,  he  has  all  the  possibilities  of  a  hero  within  him,  but 
in  health  is  one  of  the  most  arrant  of  cowards.  Obviously  the  way  to 
make  the  most  of  this  remarkable  temperament  for  dramatic  purposes 


So  also  in   The  Loyal  Subject,  where  the  daughters  of  Archas   reproach   their  father 
for  expoBlng  them,  to  the  corruptions  of  the  court.   Archas  urges 

"The  court  is  virtue's  school.     At  least  It  should  be." 
And  Viola  replies, 

"I  am.  very  fearful ; 
Would  I  were  stronger  built!     You  would  have  me  honest?" 

Arch^t — "Or  not  at  all,   my  Viola." 

Viola — "I'll  thlnic  on't ;  for  'tis  no  easy  promise  and  live  there."     (Ill,  2.) 

Wefence  of  Poesy.     Cools  ed.  (1890),  p.  28. 

The  hero  of  the  play  of  that  name. 


110  BEAUMONT-FLETCHEB    PLAYS. 

is  to  show  it  under  both  varieties  of  experience,  and  this  is  what  Fletch- 
er does.  At  first  we  have  the  lieutenant  hotly  refusing  to  fight  in  the 
critical  battle  of  the  war;  then  he  is  played  upon  by  his  fellow  soldiers 
until  he  believes  himself  desperately  ill  and  has  been  subjected  to  much 
persecution  from  the  physicians.  Finally,  in  a  wild  desire  to  escape 
these  evils,  he  rushes  out  into  the  very  teeth  of  the  enemy,  snatches  their 
standard  away  from  them  and  bears  it  back  in  triumph.  In  The  Pil- 
grim it  is  the  testy  father  who  starts  all  the  complications  by  trying  to 
force  his  daughter  to  marry  one  suitor  although  she  loves  another,  and 
the  fits  of  passion  into  which  he  works  himself  at  every  turn  are  a  con- 
stant source^oi. comic. effect.  The  same  trait  of  testiness  is  found  in 
Antonio  in  The  Chances  and  Petronius  in  The  Womaris  Prize,  with 
much  the  same  treatment  and  results,  although  the  plots  of  the  plays, 
of  course,  differ. 

It  is  true  that  in  every  case  the  one  who  has  caused  the  mischief — 
in  the  event  that  there  is  any  mischief  involved — is  made  either  to  suf- 
fer some  laughable  punishment  or  at  least  to  confess  the  error  of  his 
way;  but  there  is  never  any  permanent  humiliation  resulting  and  no 
matter  how  many  intrigues  and  cross  intrigues  there  may  have  been, 
there  is  only  amity  to  be  found  at  the  close  of  the  play.  In  this  way  it 
comes  about  that  Fletcher's  comedies  never  carry  with  them  the  idea 
of  victimizing.  They  are  conceived  in  the  spirit  of  rollicking  adventure 
and  in  this  are  radically  different  from  those  of  Chapman  and  Jonson, 
who  worked  on  the  principle  of  "folly  and  exposure"  and  loved  to  set 
their  characters  up  as  targets  for  their  scorn. 

Moreover,  it  is  to  the  cleverness  of  the  characters  themselves  that 
Fletcher  owes  most  of  the  success  of  his  comedies;  for,  besides  the  dis- 
tinguishing trait  of  each,  he  endows  most  of  them  with  at  least  one 
other — a  sense  of  humor — and  the  prevalence  of  this  spirit  among  them 
becomes  the  source  of  most  of  the  fun"Tffid  complications  of  the  plays. 
When  once  they  are  given  the  cue,  they  carry  on  the  action  with  spirit 
for  themselves.  They  love  a  merry  trick  for  its  own  sake  and  so,  aside 
from  the  situations  whicli  arise  from  chance,  many  are  generated  by 
sheer  force  of  the  mental  agility  and  fun  instinct  of  the  participants. 
They  even  relish  wit  at  their  own  expense  and,  like  Robin  Hood,  being 
beaten  at  their  own  game,  they  are  ready  to  acknowledge  a  superior. 
So  Perez  is  finally  won  to  Estefania  by  admiration  of  the  very  cleverness 
that  has  outwitted  him,  and  Petruchio  becomes  the  more  enamored  of 
his  troublesome  bride  the  more  he  realizes  her  wit  in  subduing  him. 

Theee   comedy   characters   of  Fletcher's  have,   too,   with   all   their 


THE  SPIKIT  OF  COMEDIES.  Ill 

moral  limitations,  a  wonderful  likeableness  and  charm.  They  under- 
stand the  laws  of  good  fellowship  and  combine  wit  and  sentiment  in  a 
way  that  is  definitely  attractive.  Even  to  the  reader  they  make  a  very 
merry  world  to  live  in  during  the  course  of  a  play  and  they  would  doubt- 
less have  a  double  interest  when  genuinely  alive  upon  the  stage.  In- 
deed, there  is  so  much  in  the  comedies  of  Fletcher  which  would  appeal 
now,  as  strongly  as  ever,  to  a  popular  audience  that  the  wonder  con- 
stantly arises  as  to  why  some  of  them  at  least  are  not  still  acted  today. 
The  moral  tone  of  many  of  them  is,  of  course,  a  serious  objection  and 
after  Mr.  Barrett  Wendell's  strong  assertions'  in  regard  to  the  unde- 
sirability  of  making  such  a  suggestion,  one  hesitates  to  be  identified  with 
the  recommendation,  and  yet  the  writer  believes  that  Wit  Without  Mon- 
ey, The  Woman's  Prize,  The  Wild  Goose  Chase,  The  Pilgrim,  and  even 
The  Chances  might  with  comparatively  slight  omissions  and  alterations 
be  adapted  to  modern  proprieties.  These  changes  once  skilfully  made, 
the  plays  would  have  many  chances  for  success  and  would  assuredly  sat- 
isfy people  of  the  t3rpe  of  niind  which  finds  no  real  enjoyment  in  Shaks- 
pere.  Indeed,  they  would  furnish  enjoyment  to  any  who  came  to  the 
theatre  in  holiday  mood. 


iMr.  Wendell  in  his  Trinity  Lectures  entitled  The  Temper  of  the  Seventeenth  Cen- 
tury in  English  Literature  (p.  82),  declares  all  the  comedies  too  corrupt  and  Indecent 
for  popular  reading  and  justifies  the  despair  of  a  friend  who  being  invited  to  prepare 
two  or  three  of  the  plays  for  such  reading  abandoned  the  task  because  he  was 
nnwilling  to  give  any  edition  of  any  one  of  the  plays  the  sanction  of  his  name.  The 
feeling  was  not  to  be  wondered  at,  though  the  conclusion  was  somewhat  hasty. 


IX. 
CONCLUSION. 

If  the  praise  thus  far  meted  out  to  Fletcher  has  seemed  scant  and 
half  disparaging,  it  may  be  well  to  recall  the  view  suggested  as  a  starting 
point  for  our  investigation — ^that  he  had  neither  deep  spirituality  nor 
profound  intelligence,  and  was  inferior  to  Beaumont,  in  some  degree  at 
least,  in  both  these  respects,  though  he  had  a  literary  personality  no 
less  clear  and  interesting  than  that  of  his  friend,  and  was  in  some  re- 
spects his  superior.  It  has  been  granted,  too,  that  both  the  nature  and 
the  extent  of  his  limitations  make  it  impossible  that  he  should  ever  take 
rank  among  the  greatest  of  all  ages. 

And  yet,  in  spite  of  all  this  acknowledgment,  the  writer  can  hardly 
close  even  this  brief  and  fugitive  study  without  uttering  some  more  pos- 
itive word  in  commendation  of  Fletcher,  for  one  of  the  results  of  the 
investigation  has  been  a  conviction  that,  as  a  rule,  modem  critics  have 
not  given  him  his  full  due.  They  have  pointed  out  with  truth  his  many 
elements  of  weakness,  judging  him,  however,  by  a  far  stricter  code  of 
moral  proprieties  than  the  one  under  which  he  himself  lived,  and  thus 
finding  his  moral  taint  so  overshadowing  that  they  have  not  been  quite 
able  to  do  justice  to  his  real  excellencies.  Grant  all  his  deficiencies, 
however,  making  all  proper  deductions  for  each,  and  even  then  he  is 
doubly  a  master;  for  he  not  only  stands  in  the  very  front  rank  of  dra- 
matic artists,  but  he  has  a  poetic  gift  which  is,  in  itself,  a  liberal  endow- 
ment. It  has  been  the  custom,  of  course,  to  disparage  this  latter  gift 
by  calling  its  very  ease  and  simplicity  marks  of  the  decadence  of  English 
dramatic  poetry,  as  indicating  a  tendency  to  descend  to  the  level  of 
prose;  and  the  criticism  is  not  entirely  without  foundation.  At  the 
same  time  it  is  hardly  just  to  one  whose  strong  musical  sense  lifts  his 
verse  above  all  legitimate  identification  with  prose.  Indeed,  it  would 
seem  that  he  had  earned  added  praise  rather  than  blame  for  subjecting 
his  medium  of  expression  to  the  perfect  mastery  which  good  drama  re- 
quires, without  ever  detracting  from  its  essentially  poetic  quality.  It 
is  not  alone  in  his  lyrics,  some  of  which  hold  acknowledged  rank  with 

112 


CONCLUSION.  113 

the  best  in  the  language,  but  even  more  perhaps  in  what  may  be  called 
the  "rank  and  file"  of  his  verse,  that  he  shows  his  rare  gift  of  poetry. 
His  lyre  is  always  in  his  hand,  his  ear  always  attuned,  and  however  he 
may  vary  the  moods  of  his  characters  or  the  turns  of  his  plots,  he  is 
always  able  to  sway  his  instrument  into  harmonious  expression  of  the 
new  conditions.  He  cannot,  of  course,  mount  to  the  genuinely  sublime, 
but  that  is  because  his  thought  itself  cannot  mount  and  so  fetters  the 
power  of  utterance  which  would  follow  its  leadings.  Within  his  range, 
however,  he  has  a  delicate  sense  for  proper  melody,  a  graceful  art  in  the 
choosing  and  adjusting  of  words,  and  a  limpidity  of  rhythmical  flow 
which  suggest  the  musician  hardly  less  than  the  poet.  His  verse  swept 
all  the  moods  from  grave  to  gay,  knew  how  to  flow  along  in  the  easy  nar- 
rative style  of  quiet  conversation  or  quicken  into  the  brisker  chat  of  rep- 
artee, bristled  with  movement  when  the  action  grew  busiest  and  often 
rose  to  a  real  dignity  when  the  serious  things  of  life  were  touched  upon. 
But  aside  from  his  poetic  gifts,  Fletcher  may,  as  Prof.  Thorndike 
suggests,^  well  have  more  honor  done  him  as  a  conscious  and  discrimin- 
ating artist.  His  insistent  eclecticism  and  his  constant  aim  at  imme- 
diate success  on  the  stage,  kept  him,  to  be  sure,  from  surrendering  him- 
self to  any  classic  rules,  and  yet  it  would  be  wrong  to  infer  that  he  had 
not  a  large  share  of  the  artist's  intelligence,  or  that  he  entirely  neglected 
his  higher  instincts.  He  knew  far  more  of  what  was  high  and  true  in 
his  art  than  he  chose  to  follow,  for  he  had  with  all  his  hedonism  and 
ideas  as  to  expediency,  a  critical  faculty  which  took  its  own  risks  delib- 
erately and  which  was  able  to  turn  his  work  into  more  serious  and  def- 
initely artistic  channels.  He  showed  this  in  The  Faithful  Shepherdess, 
where  he  openly  defied  both  the  popular  taste  and  his  own  craving  for 
stage  effect  and  even  in  his  tragedies,  which  fall  sadly  short  of  the  highest 
type  of  greatness,  he  proved  that  he  could,  at  will,  avoid  many  of  the 
technical  faults  of  his  haste  and  indifference.  One  has  only  to  study 
his  marvellous  insight  into  dramatic  economies,  observe  the  skill  with 
which  he  chooses,  shifts,  and  supplements  his  material,  and  follow  his 
method  in  meeting  the  limitations  of  his  stage  and  turning  its  very 
deficiencies  into  elements  of  success,  to  realize  thnt  he  is  well  nigh  incom- 
parable as  a  master  of  stagecraft,  and  that  he  needed  only  the  leaven  of 
artistic  seriousness  to  make  him  a  dramatic  artist  above  all  reproach. 


»In  a  private  letter  April,  1905. 

^Lectures  and  'Notes  on  Shakspere  and  Oiher  Dramatists.  Ashe  ed.,  p.  446, 
"Shakspere  Is  the  helprht.  breadth  and  dopth  of  conius :  Beaumont  and  Fletcher,  the 
excellent  mechanism,  In  juxtaposition  and  succession,  of  talent." 


114  BEAUMONT-FLETCHER    PLAYS. 

If  by  genius  is  meant  only  that  very  divinest  spark  which  illumines 
men's  minds,  we  must  accept  for  Fletcher  the  verdict  which  Coleridge 
pronounced  upon  both  the  dramatists  and  which  Jusserand  has  recently 
repeated  in  saying  that  they  had  "une  forte  dose  de  talent  et  une  faible 
dose  de  g^nie/^^  Each  poet  should  be  judged,  however,  by  his  marks  of 
power,  no  less  than  by  his  limitations. 

^Hiatoire  litteraire  du  peuple  anglais,  II,  p.  812. 


OF  THE  \ 

UNIVERSITY 

OF 


p:.- 


:'^^v^y;^if-^:-'  'W 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 
on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


14Nqv'56IW 


^^SP^ 


\S> 


RECD  LD 


-m 


liatSfijUL  17 '64 -11  AM 


..0,1,  ;>'.:/  :.t:. 


tH^S'VBH 


1%*— " 


U>  L.O 


Rr^'CD  LD 


NOV  12  1961 


SH>»  '64-lPM 


2SNw'62AE 


iftua  Tzoos 


24]ul'54HK 


LD  21-100m-6,'56 
(B9311sl0)476 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


VD  4806 1 : 


